'Maybe I should talk to a lawyer': ambiguous invocations of Miranda; Supreme Court review.

An analysis of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Davis v. United States, in which the Court took up “ambiguous or equivocal references to counsel during custodial interrogation.” With regard to a suspect's right to counsel under Miranda v. Arizona, whereby interrogation must cease until an at...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Trial: The National Legal Newsmagazine Vol. 30; p. 90
Autor principal: Dripps, Donald A.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: American Association for Justice (AJJ) September 1994
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=512510275&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 512510275
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00412538
        TRL
      jtl: Trial: The National Legal Newsmagazine
      issn: 00412538
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: September 1994
      vid: 30
      pid: 1420
      pub: American Association for Justice (AJJ)
    artinfo:
      ui: 512510275
      ppf: 90
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: 'Maybe I should talk to a lawyer': ambiguous invocations of Miranda; Supreme Court review.
      aug:
        au: Dripps, Donald A.
      su:
        Police questioning
        Right to counsel
      sug:
        subj:
          Police questioning
          Right to counsel
      ab: An analysis of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Davis v. United States, in which the Court took up “ambiguous or equivocal references to counsel during custodial interrogation.” With regard to a suspect's right to counsel under Miranda v. Arizona, whereby interrogation must cease until an attorney is present if the suspect requests an attorney, a majority in the Court imposed on the suspect, rather than on the questioning officers, the burden of clarifying whether an attorney has been requested. The reasons why this ruling could be regarded as questionable are outlined.
      pubtype: Periodical
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N