green
Positive treatment
7.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Singleton
See United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 666 (2d Cir.) (once parole officer had information that defendant possessed a gun at his residence and used it to threaten others, officer was entitled to search defendant’s apartment), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 947 , 125 S.Ct. 371 , 160 L.Ed.2d 262 (2004); United States v. Bennett, No. 05-CR-6050, 2005 WL 2709572 , at *7-*8 (W.D.N.Y.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Falso
See United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 668 (2d Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 947 , 125 S.Ct. 371 , 160 L.Ed.2d 262 (2004).
examined
Cited "see"
Mitchell v. State
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Littlejohn v. State, 2004 OK CR 6, ¶ 27 , 85 P.3d 287, 297 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 947 , 125 S.Ct. 358 , 160 L.Ed.2d 261 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Abbas
See United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 676 (2d Cir.) (informing subject that he is not under arrest and is free to leave “is a fact that may be considered in assessing the extent to which a reasonable person would understand any restraints on his freedom to be comparable to those associated with a formal arrest”), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 947 , 125 S.Ct. 371 , 160 L.Ed.2d 262 (2004); United States v. Salvo, 133 F.3d 943, 951 (6th Cir.1998) (statement to suspect that he was not under arrest, was free to leave at any time, and would not be arrested at the end of the interview was “an imp…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lazaro C.-D.
See, e.g., United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659 , 675–77 (2d Cir.) (defendant was in custody despite being told he was not under arrest when six law enforcement officers entered his apartment and handcuffed him), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 947 , 125 S. Ct. 371 , 160 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Smith
See, e.g., United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 673 , 675–79 (2d Cir.) (citing cases and holding that, even though defendant was in handcuffs, Terry stop of defendant was reasonable, but he was in custody for Miranda purposes, and nevertheless public safety exception applied), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 947 , 125 S. Ct. 371 , 160 L.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Smith
(3×)
Thus, a question that plainly encompasses safety concerns, but is broad enough to elicit other information, does not necessarily prevent application of the public safety exception when safety is at issue and context makes clear that the question primarily involves safety.’’ (Citation omitted; emphasis added.) United States v. Estrada, supra, 430 F.3d 612 ; see also United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 678 (2d Cir.) (recognizing that ‘‘public safety questions are framed spontaneously in dangerous situations’’ and that ‘‘[p]re- cision crafting cannot be expected in such situati…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Parker
In determining whether a defendant was in custody, a court .must first determine whether, “in light of the objective circumstances of the interrogation, ... a reasonable person [would] have felt that he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” Howes v. Fields, 132 S.Ct. at 1189 (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 672 (2d Cir.) (the court must ask “whether a reasonable person would have thought he was free to leave the police encounter at issue”), ce rt. denied, 543 U.S. 947 , 125 S.Ct. 371 , 160 L.Ed.2…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
CONGELOSI v. Miller
Second, in light of those circumstances, the reviewing court asks whether “a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. at 113 , 116 S.Ct. 457 (1995) (footnote omitted); see also United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 672 (2d Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 947 , 125 S.Ct. 371 , 160 L.Ed.2d 262 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. May
However, our analysis, under Miranda , invokes different concerns than those relevant for purposes of a Fourth Amendment analysis, and instead asks “whether the defendant was restrained as though he were under formal arrest.” See Stansbury v. California, su *1029 pra at 322, 114 S.Ct. 1526 , quoting California v. Beheler, supra at 1125; United States v. Czichray, supra at 830; see also, United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 676-78 (2nd Cir.2004), cert. denied 543 U.S. 947 , 125 S.Ct. 371 , 160 L.Ed.2d 262 (2004)(finding the holding of Michigan v. Summers inapposite to the analysis of cust…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gray
v.
Woodford, Director, California Department of Corrections
v.
Woodford, Director, California Department of Corrections
04-6021.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 18, 2004.
Published
GRAY
v.
WOODFORD, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
No. 04-6021.
Supreme Court of United States.
October 18, 2004.
1
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 84 Fed. Appx. 756.