No. 18-7600
Johnathan Holt v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-procedure custody custody-analysis interrogation law-enforcement-interrogation miranda-custody miranda-v-arizona objective-analysis personal-mobility sixth-circuit sixth-circuit-interpretation totality-of-circumstances
Key Terms:
CriminalProcedure
CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference:
2019-02-22
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a court must evaluate all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, including a lack of personal mobility, when deciding whether a person is in custody when interrogated by law enforcement?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Under the objective analysis criteria established by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and its progeny, must a court evaluate all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, including a lack of personal mobility, when deciding whether a person is in custody when interrogated by law enforcement? ii
Docket Entries
2019-02-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.
2019-02-04
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-01-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 27, 2019)
Attorneys
Johnathan Holt
Steven Richard Jaeger — The Jaeger Firm PLLC, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent