Yarborough v. Alvarado
- Decided
- June 1, 2004
- Docket
- 02-1684
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,494 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that (a) state court did not unreasonably apply federal law when it failed to consider suspect's age in determining custodial status; (b — State v. Pitts (2006)
- recognizing that in determining whether Miranda warnings were required, an important circumstance is whether the questioning took place in public or at the police station — State v. Hicks (2008)
- holding that "custody must be based on how a reasonable person in the suspect's situation would perceive his circumstances." — State v. Nyhammer (2007)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, a federal court can grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person held pursuant to a state-court judgment if the state-court adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a state court unreasonably applied clearly established law when it held that the respondent was not in custody for Miranda purposes. Alvarado v. Hickman, 316 F. 3d 841 (2002). We disagree and reverse.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.