Yarborough V. Alvarado Yarborough V. Alvarado

Yarborough V. Alvarado

    • $0.99
    • $0.99

Publisher Description

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.

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
2004
June 1
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
34
Pages
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SELLER
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
SIZE
78.8
KB

More Books by Supreme Court of the United States

Roe Et Al. v. Wade Roe Et Al. v. Wade
1973
Miranda v. Arizona Miranda v. Arizona
1966
Plessy v. Ferguson. Plessy v. Ferguson.
1896
Federal Rules of Evidence, Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure and Appellate Procedure 2024 Federal Rules of Evidence, Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure and Appellate Procedure 2024
2024
Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio
1968
Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio
1961