green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
14.3 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2006 ·
…because the presence of both a custodial setting and official interrogation is required to trigger the miranda right-to-counsel prophylactic, absent one or the other, miranda is not implicated.
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1999 ·
…it is not a prerequisite to application of the abuse of the writ doctrine that the petitioner have had a prior petition adjudicated on the merits
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Spencer v. Ault
(2×)
But see Gomez v. Ahitow, 29 F.3d 1128, 1134 (7th Cir.1994) (holding that findings of a state court on questions of whether a defendant understood his or her rights and knowingly and intelligently waived them are entitled to the § 2254(d) presumption), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1122 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1995).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Virgil F. Ryder v. O.C. Jenkins, Warden United States Parole Commission
(2×)
But see Macklin v. Singletary, 24 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir.1994) (stating in light of Sawyer v. Whitley, — U.S.-,-, 112 S.Ct. 2514, 2518 , 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992), federal courts must resist temptation “to skip over an abuse of the writ issue and deny a claim on the merits”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1122 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1995).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Wilson v. Commonwealth
(3×)
because the presence of both a custodial setting and official interrogation is required to trigger the miranda right-to-counsel prophylactic, absent one or the other, miranda is not implicated.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Feaster v. Beshears
(3×)
it is not a prerequisite to application of the abuse of the writ doctrine that the petitioner have had a prior petition adjudicated on the merits
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Medina v. Singletary
(2×)
habeas court may reach the merits of a claim not raised in a previous petition only if the petitioner establishes both cause and prejudice, or shows that the fundamental miscarriage of justice, or actual innocence, exception applies.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Matthews v. Evatt
Burks v. Borg, 27 F.3d 1424, 1427 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 - S. Ct. 1122, 130 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1995).
examined
Cited "see"
Livingston v. Streeter
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Macklin v. Singletary, 24 F.3d 1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 1994) (in abuse of the writ case, appellate court suggests that habeas courts need perform no analysis when the petitioner fails to argue an exception to application of the doctrine), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1160 , 115 S.Ct. 1122 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Harris v. United States
See Macklin v. Singletary, 24 F.3d 1307, 1312-13 (11th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1160 (1995).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Tommy Davis
(3×)
See Gomez v. Ahitow, 29 F.3d 1128, 1133 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1160 , 115 S.Ct. 1122 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1995).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Dean Martin Arnold
(5×)
Moreover, "[i]ncriminating statements pertaining to other crimes, as to which the Sixth Amendment right has not yet attached, are, of course, admissible at trial of these offenses." Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 , 180 n. 16, 106 S.Ct. 477 , 489 n. 16, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); accord Alston v. Redman, 34 F.3d 1237 , 1252 n. 16 (3d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1160 , 115 S.Ct. 1122 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1995). 12 Two Supreme Court cases establish a limited exception to the "offense specific" rule.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Arnold
Moreover, “[i]ncriminating statements pertaining to other crimes, as to which the Sixth Amendment right has not yet attached, are, of course, admissible at trial of these offenses.” Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 , 180 n.16, 106 S.Ct. 477 , 489 n.16 (1985); accord Alston v. Redman, 34 F.3d 1237 , 1252 n.16 (3d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1122 (1995).
examined
Cited "see"
McKusick v. City of Melbourne, FL
(4×)
See Macklin v. Singletary, 24 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir.1994) ("Because our scope of review is narrower and a district court’s range of choice broader under the abuse of discretion standard, we should be more reluctant to address in the first instance issues to which that standard of review applies.”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1122 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Advanced Estimating System, Inc. v. Riney
(2×)
See Macklin v. Singletary, 24 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir.1994) (“We should be more reluctant to address initially an issue that is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review than an issue subject to a de novo standard of review.”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1122 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Advanced Estimating System, Inc. v. Riney
(2×)
See Macklin v. Singletary, 24 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir.1994) ("We should be more reluctant to address initially an issue that is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review than an issue subject to a de novo standard of review."), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1122 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Grimes
(2×)
See Alston v. Redman, 34 F.3d 1237, 1246 (3rd Cir.1994), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1122 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1995). 9 .
examined
Cited "see"
Roy Anthony HARRIS v. UNITED STATES of America
(6×)
See Macklin v. Singletary, 24 F.3d 1307, 1312-13 (11th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1160 , 115 S.Ct. 1122 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1995).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Ennis v. Bolling
(3×)
Compare McKay v. United States, 657 F.3d 1190, 1196 (11 Cir. 2011) (“Because McKay does not argue on appeal that the cause and prejudice exception applies—nor for that matter did he do so at the district court— we do not address this exception.”), cert. denied, 568 U.S. 830 , 133 S.Ct. 112 , 184 L.Ed.2d 52 (2012), with Macklin v. Singletary, 24 F.3d 1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 1994) (in abuse of the writ case, appellate court suggests that habeas courts need perform no 28 analysis when the petitioner fails to argue an exception to application of the doctrine), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1160 , 1…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hambly
(4×)
See also, Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444-45 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . [12] See, e.g., Alston v. Redman, 34 F.3d 1237, 1245 (3d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1160 , 115 S.Ct. 1122 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1995); People v. Villalobos, 193 Ill.2d 229 , 250 Ill.Dec. 17 , 737 N.E.2d 639, 642 (2000); Russell v. State, 215 S.W.3d 531, 536 (Tex. App.2007). [13] McNeil, 501 U.S. at 178 , 111 S.Ct. 2204 (emphasis in original). [14] The Miranda Court described its holding as follows: "[T]he prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unl…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Dehaney
(3×)
Although such challenges generally may be based on subjective as well as objective criteria; see, e.g., Burks v. Borg, 27 F.3d 1424, 1429 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1160 , 115 S. Ct. 1122 , 130 L.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hodge
(3×)
Although such challenges generally may be based on subjective as well as objective criteria; see, e.g., Burks v. Borg, 27 F.3d 1424, 1429 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1160 , 115 S. Ct. 1122 , 130 L.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Gaytan v. Kapus
(3×)
This is so because counsel must be entitled to make credibility determinations in exercising peremptory challenges.” Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 918 (4th Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 102 , 139 L.Ed.2d 57 (1997); see also Burks v. Borg, 27 F.3d 1424, 1429 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1160 , 115 S.Ct. 1122 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Green v. State
(2×)
See, e.g., Cardona v. State, 641 So.2d 361 , 364 n. 2 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1122 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1995); Valdes v. State, 626 So.2d 1316 , 1322 n. 8 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2725 , 129 L.Ed.2d 849 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Boler v. State
(2×)
See, e.g., Cardona v. State, 641 So.2d 361 , 364 n. 2 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1122 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1995); Valdes v. State, 626 So.2d 1316 , 1322 n. 8 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2725 , 129 L.Ed.2d 849 (1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cardona
v.
Florida
v.
Florida
No. 94-7096.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 21, 1995.
Cited by 66 opinions | Published
Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.