No. 22-5128
My Loan Nguyen v. Michael Pallares, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights criminal-procedure custodial-interrogation due-process fifth-amendment fundamental-rights miranda-rights ninth-circuit police-interrogation police-questioning
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment CriminalProcedure HabeasCorpus Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess FifthAmendment CriminalProcedure HabeasCorpus Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-09-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals violated petitioner's fundamental rights by ruling that the California Courts reasonably applied Miranda-v-Arizona
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Question Presented for Review The sole question raised by this Petition for Certiorari is whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals violated petitioner’s fundamental rights by ruling that the California Courts reasonably applied this Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), in rejecting petitioner’s claim that her right to terminate a custodial police interrogation was violated when she unambiguously and unequivocally told the officer that she did not want to answer further questions.
Docket Entries
2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-08-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-07-28
Waiver of right of respondent Michael Pallares to respond filed.
2022-07-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 18, 2022)
Attorneys
Michael Pallares
Gregory A. Ott — California Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Gregory A. Ott — California Attorney General's Office, Respondent
My Nguyen
Geoffrey M Jones — Law Office of Geoffrey M. Jones, Petitioner
Geoffrey M Jones — Law Office of Geoffrey M. Jones, Petitioner