Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 31 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from People v. Williams.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Williams Anchor | green | “an effective waiver of miranda rights may be made by an accused of subnormal intelligence so long as it is established that he or she understood the immediate meaning of the warnings” | 8 |
| 2 | People v. Williams | green | “close scrutiny must be made of the circumstances of the asserted waiver” | 5 |
| 3 | People v. Williams | green | “so long as it is established that he or she understood the immediate meaning of the warnings” | 4 |
| 4 | People v. Santos | green | “age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and . . . whether he or she has the capacity to understand the warnings given him or her, the nature of his or her fifth amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights” | 4 |
| 5 | People v. Dunn | green | “a defendant's mental deficiency weighs against the admissibility of an elicited confession, so that any such confession must be measured by the degree of the defendant's awareness of the nature of the rights being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon them” | 4 |
| 6 | People v. Holland | green | “before and apart from miranda, courts have long held that a person's limited intellectual ability bears appreciably on the voluntariness of the person's response to interrogation” | 3 |
| 7 | People v. Aveni | green | “for a statement to be admissible, the people must prove a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.