Statement of mortally wounded victim to police was not “testimonial” under Crawford Confrontation Clause holding because circumstances indicated “primary purpose” of the police questions eliciting statement was to “meet an ongoing emergency.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Sixth Amendment jury trial right’s “fair cross-section” requirement demands no particular method for determining fair representation of “distinctive groups.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Under the Sixth Amendment Strickland standard for effective assistance of counsel, “constitutionally competent counsel would have advised [the defendant] that his conviction for drug distribution made him subject to automatic deportation.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Advice that a suspect has “the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of [the law enforcement officers’] questions,” and that he can invoke this right “at any time. . . during th[e] interview,” satisfies Miranda requirement of advice of suspect’s right to have a lawyer with him during interrogation.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Adopts a brightline rule that a fourteen-day break in Miranda custody ends the presumption of involuntariness established in Edwards v. Arizona for responses to police-initiated questioning after a subject has invoked the right to have Miranda counsel present during interrogation; a subject incarcerated for an unrelated crime is not in Miranda custody for purposes of this fourteen-day rule.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion