No. 23-6641
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional constitutional-interpretation due-process fifth-amendment miranda-v-arizona miranda-warning prophylactic-procedures prophylactic-rule self-incrimination text-history-tradition
Key Terms:
FifthAmendment DueProcess CriminalProcedure HabeasCorpus
FifthAmendment DueProcess CriminalProcedure HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2024-02-23
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should this Court overturn the prophylactic procedures announced in Miranda v. Arizona and return to an interpretation of the Fifth Amendment which is supported by the text, history, and tradition of the Self-Incrimination Clause?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Question Presented Should this Court overturn the prophylactic procedures announced in Miranda v. Arizona and return to an interpretation of the Fifth Amendment which is supported by the text, history, and tradition of the Self-Incrimination Clause? 1
Docket Entries
2024-02-26
Petition DENIED.
2024-02-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/23/2024.
2024-02-06
Waiver of right of respondent Wisconsin to respond filed.
2024-01-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 4, 2024)
Attorneys
Cedric A. Gray
Steven Sidney Roy — Law Office of Steven Roy, Petitioner
Steven Sidney Roy — Law Office of Steven Roy, Petitioner
Wisconsin
Lisa Ellen Fishering Kumfer — Wisconsin Department of Justice, Respondent
Lisa Ellen Fishering Kumfer — Wisconsin Department of Justice, Respondent