No. 21-1083

Jay Hoon Choi v. Virginia

Lower Court: Virginia
Docketed: 2022-02-04
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 6th-amendment criminal-procedure custodial-interrogation due-process law-enforcement-contact miranda-rights right-to-attorney right-to-counsel right-to-remain-silent sixth-amendment state-magistrates
Key Terms:
DueProcess CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference: 2022-03-25
Question Presented (from Petition)

Issue 1. Following the police reading of the rights enumerated in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), how long after a person in custody asserts his/her 6th Amendment right to counsel is contact with an attorney required.

Issue 2. Are state magistrates required to tell a recent arrestee, who is brought before them that what the arrestee says may be used against him/her; that the arrestee has a right to remain silent; and that the arrestee has a right to have an attorney, before further proceedings occur

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Miranda-rights-after-assertion

Docket Entries

2022-03-28
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/25/2022.
2022-03-02
Waiver of right of respondent Commonwealth of Virginia to respond filed.
2022-02-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 7, 2022)

Attorneys

Commonwealth of Virginia
Andrew Nathan FergusonOffice of the Attorney General, Respondent
Jay Hoon Choi
Marvin David MillerThe Law Offices of Marvin D. Miller, Petitioner