No. 20-1677
Tags: 5th-amendment appellate-review criminal-procedure custody custody-determination due-process evidence-suppression miranda-warnings motion-to-suppress sudden-passion
Key Terms:
FifthAmendment FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy
FifthAmendment FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy
Latest Conference:
2021-09-27
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the Court of Appeals Erred in Affirming the Trial Court's Denial of Ms. Rankin's Motion to Suppress Because She was in Law Enforcement's Custody for the Purposes of Miranda and Not Given the Proper Warnings.
Whether the Court of Appeals Erred in Affirming the Trial Court's Jury Verdict that the Evidence Factually and Legally Did Not Support the Finding that Ms. Rankin Did Not Act Under the Influence of Sudden Passion.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Court of Appeals Erred in Affirming the Trial Court's Denial of Ms. Rankin's Motion to Suppress Because She was in Law Enforcement's Custody for the Purposes of Miranda and Not Given the Proper Warnings
Docket Entries
2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-07-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-05-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 2, 2021)
Attorneys
Angel Lee Rankin
Robert L. Sirianni Jr. — Brownstone, P.A., Petitioner