No. 22-7741
Tags: burden-of-proof criminal-procedure due-process evidence-admissibility fifth-amendment law-enforcement-procedure miranda-warning miranda-warnings police-interrogation self-incrimination supreme-court
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. When determining whether statements made after a midstream Miranda warning are admissible, do courts consider the warning's objective effectiveness or the officer's subjective intent in delaying it?
2. If courts consider the officer's subjective intent, which party bears the burden to show that the officer did or did not act deliberately?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When determining whether statements made after a midstream Miranda warning are admissible, do courts consider the warning's objective effectiveness or the officer's subjective intent in delaying it?
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-08-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-08-21
Reply of petitioner Rudy Alvarez filed. (Distributed)
2023-08-09
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2023-07-10
Brief amici curiae of Criminal Law and Procedure Professors filed.
2023-07-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 9, 2023.
2023-07-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 10, 2023 to August 9, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-06-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 10, 2023)
Attorneys
Criminal Law and Procedure Professors
Rudy Alvarez
Kara Lee Hartzler — Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent