No. 20-8363
Response RequestedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: criminal-procedure due-process evidence evidence-admission fifth-amendment miranda-rights prosecutorial-argument self-incrimination
Key Terms:
FifthAmendment DueProcess CriminalProcedure Jurisdiction JusticiabilityDoctri
FifthAmendment DueProcess CriminalProcedure Jurisdiction JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2021-11-19
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. In a criminal prosecution, can a suspect's silence after he is arrested, but before he is questioned or read his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Hd.2d (1966) be admitted during the prosecution case-in-chief and commented upon during closing argument to prove his guilt?
2. Can an arrested suspect's sua sponte invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and subsequent silence, be admitted to prove his guilt when the defendant has not been read his Miranda rights?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a suspect's silence after arrest but before Miranda warnings can be admitted and commented upon to prove guilt
Docket Entries
2021-11-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-11-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/19/2021.
2021-10-28
Reply of petitioner Outhdorm Ros filed.
2021-10-15
Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.
2021-09-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 15, 2021.
2021-09-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 15, 2021 to October 15, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-08-16
Response Requested. (Due September 15, 2021)
2021-08-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-06-22
Supplemental proof of service filed.
2021-06-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 21, 2021)
Attorneys
Outhdorm Ros
John Leis Staley — John L. Staley, Attorney, Petitioner
People of the State of California
Matthew C. Mulford — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent