Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Yarborough v. Alvarado

Docket No.: 02-1684
Certiorari Granted: Sep 30 2003
Argued: March 1, 2004
Decided: June 1, 2004

Topics:

28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus), Criminal Procedure, Death Penalty, EPA, Fifth Amendment, Miranda, criminal procedure, habeas, habeas corpus, ineffective assistance of counsel, murder, self-incrimination

PartyNames: Michael Yarborough, Warden v. Michael Alvarado
Petitioner: Michael Yarborough, Warden
Respondent: Michael Alvarado

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: CA 9, 316 F.3d 841 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. This Court has held that the test to determine if a person is "in custody" torequire warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is an objective test (i.e., whether there is a "formal arrest or restraint on freedomof movement" of the degree associated with a formal arrest). Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995) (quoting California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 (1983)); Berkemer v. McCarty , 468 U.S. 420,442 (1984). The question presented is:
Supreme Court Docket

Michael Yarborough, Warden
v.
Michael Alvarado
541 U.S. 652 (2004)
Question Presented:

1. This Court has held that the test to determine if a person is "in custody" torequire warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is an objective test (i.e., whether there is a "formal arrest or restraint on freedomof movement" of the degree associated with a formal arrest). Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995) (quoting California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 (1983)); Berkemer v. McCarty , 468 U.S. 420,442 (1984). The question presented is: Whether, in applying the objective test for a "custody" determination under Miranda, a court must consider the age and experience of a person if he orshe is a juvenile. 2. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), a feder al court may not grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner on a claim adjudicated on its merits in State court unless the adjudication "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law , as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." In Williams v.Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 408 (2000), this Court explicitly left open how "extension of legal principle" cases should be treated under § 2254(d)(I). Thequestion presented is: Whether a state court adjudication can be deemed an "objectively unreasonable" application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent,for purposes of § 2254(d), because it declines to "extend" the rule of a Supreme Court precedent to a new context. CERT. GRANTED: 9/30/03

Question:

When deciding whether a suspect is "in custody" and therefore entitled to his Miranda warnings, must an officer consider the suspect's age and previous history with law enforcement?

Note:

. CA 9, 316 F.3d 841

Yarborough v. Alvarado
ORAL ARGUMENT

March 1, 2004

Holding: reversed
Decision: Decision: 5 votes for Yarborough, 4 vote(s) against
Vote: 5-4
Opinion By: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)