The People v. J.W.
| Docket Number | B303310 |
| Decision Date | 23 October 2020 |
Consistent with People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, the Court of Appeal held that the routine booking question exception to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, categorically applies to all of the core booking questions enumerated in Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990) 496 U.S. 582, 601-602, and authorizes the admission of the defendant's answers to those specific questions into evidence without the need to assess those questions' incriminatory nature on a case-by-case basis
The Court of...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
1 cases
-
Carroll v. Comm'n On Teacher Credentialing
... ... That's not true. "Q. Well, the DPA is the State agency that provides advice to other people in State service about disciplining employees, correct? 56 Cal.App.5th 376 "A. It provides a ... ...
2 firm's commentaries
-
What 2020 Land Use Cases Taught (Or Reminded) Us About Litigation Basics
...who can provide testimony that satisfies the legal standards we are trying to meet. And in Tiburon/Belvedere Residents United to Support the Trails v. Martha Company (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 461, we learned that it doesn’t matter how many witnesses you put on if they don’t check these boxes. P......
-
What 2020 Land Use Cases Taught (Or Reminded) Us About Litigation Basics
...who can provide testimony that satisfies the legal standards we are trying to meet. And in Tiburon/Belvedere Residents United to Support the Trails v. Martha Company (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 461, we learned that it doesn’t matter how many witnesses you put on if they don’t check these Petition......
2 books & journal articles
-
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
...v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 735, disapproved on other grounds, People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390; In re J.W. (2d Dist.2020) 56 Cal. App.5th 355, 360. (1) When interrogation occurs. (a) Express questioning. Interrogation occurs when police officers engage in express questioning of ......
-
Table of Cases null
...Society of New York, Inc., 29 Cal. App. 5th 1142, 241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 62 (4th Dist. 2018)—Ch. 2, §13.1.2(5); Ch. 4-C, §11.4 J.W., In re, 56 Cal. App. 5th 355, 270 Cal. Rptr. 3d 461 (2d Dist. 2020)—Ch. 5-C, §2.1.2; §2.1.2(1)(b)[1]; §2.1.2(2)(a) J.Y., Conservatorship of, 49 Cal. App. 5th 220, 2......