Article 11 1987 Recent Developments: Arizona v. Mauro: Police Actions of Witnessing and Recording a Pre- Detention Meeting Did Not Constitute an Interrogation in Violation of Miranda Mark Brugh Follow this and additional works at: htp://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the Law Commons Recommended CitationArizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (5 times) Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (3 times) Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (3 times) View All Authorities Share Support FLP . CourtListener is a project of Free Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. We rely on donations for our financial security. ...Office Telephone: (561) 688-7759 Facsimile: (561) 688-7771 Counsel of AppelleeIt comes from Miranda v. Arizona , a United States Supreme Court case that established that the government may not use statements stemming from "custodial interrogation" unless it is shown that "procedural safeguards" existed and were effective enough to offset the coercive nature of police-dominated interrogations. [3]Arizona, Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, Pyles v. State and more. Home. Subjects. Expert solutions. Create. Study sets, textbooks, questions. Log in. Sign up. Upgrade to remove ads. Only $35.99/year. Case Law: Chapters 7 & 8. Flashcards. Learn . Test. Match. Flashcards. Learn. Test. Match. Created by. horningz. Terms in this set (36) Miranda v. Arizona. …Title U.S. Reports: Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001). Names Supreme Court of the United States (Author) Created / PublishedArizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 526 (1987). 9. Innis, 446 U.S. at 301. 10. Id. at 302, n.8. 448 . Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 69.3:1 . other about a missing murder weapon and the harm that could befall little children. While in route to the central station, Patrolman Gleckman initiated a ...The decision was Arizona v. Mauro, No. 85-2121. Food Stamps And Labor Strikers The Court agreed to decide whether the Government may limit a family's eligibility for food stamps when a member of ...Audio Transcription for Oral Argument – March 31, 1987 in Arizona v. Mauro William H. Rehnquist: We will hear argument now in Number 85-2121, Arizona versus William Carl Mauro. Mr. Roberts, you may proceed whenever you are ready. Jack Roberts: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:ARIZONA v. MAURO Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 31, 1987 Decided May 4, 1987 Attorney (s) appearing for the Case Jack Roberts, Assistant Attorney General of Arizona, argued the cause for petitioner.1966, in the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court laid down clearer guidelines for police and courts to follow. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) In this case, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home and taken to a police station. A witness ... d. Arizona v. Mauro (1987). Arrested for killing his son, Mauro declined to answer any questions …A later Court applied Innis in Arizona v. Mauro 14 Footnote 481 U.S. 520 (1987). to hold that a suspect who had requested an attorney was not interrogated when the police instead brought the suspect's wife, who also was a suspect, to speak with him in the police's presence. The majority emphasized that the suspect's wife had asked to ...Arizona v. Mauro. Argued. Mar 31, 1987. Mar 31, 1987. Decided. May 4, 1987. May 4, 1987. Citation. 481 US 520 (1987) Arizona v. Roberson ... held that the rights to silence and to have an attorney present during a custodial interrogation established in Miranda v. Arizona are not violated when, after a suspect invokes his right to silence and ...Mauro. The seminal case on the issue of civil extortion in California is Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal. 4th 299 (2006). In that case, Michael Flatley, the “Lord of the Dance” himself, received a demand letter from attorney D. Dean Mauro on behalf of a woman who claimed that Flatley had raped her in a Las Vegas hotel room.See, e.g., Mauro, 481 U.S. at 525, 107 S. Ct. 1931; United States v. Alexander, 447 F.3d 1290 , 1295-96 (10th Cir.2006) (statement to FBI admissible where prison officials placed suspect's friend in adjoining cell and friend encouraged confession, but officials "did not develop the planned encounter, nor suggest any techniques to help [the ...ARIZONA v. MAURO No. 85-2121. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 31, 1987 Decided May 4, 1987 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA *521 …In Arizona v. Mauro (1987) 481 U.S. 520 [ 95 L.Ed.2d 458] (Mauro) the defendant Mauro was taken into custody and read his Miranda rights. He refused to answer any questions until a lawyer was present. Mauro's wife, who was being questioned in another room, asked to speak with him.Nix, 885 F.2d 456 (8th Cir.1989) and Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 107 S. Ct. 1931, 95 L. Ed. 2d 458 (1987) (the defendant made an inculpatory statement to a family member in the presence of police after receiving Miranda warnings); Lowe v. State, 650 So. 2d 969 (Fla.1994) (the defendant had received Miranda warnings and volunteered his ...xv table of contents preface.....v about the author.....ix selected federal constitutional provisions.....xi table of cases.....Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)., Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and more. Home. Subjects. Expert solutions. ... Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987). Family ties. No state action where cops allowed a suspect and wife to speak ...Arizona Department ot Corr~lons 1 PhOenix FCI L,a,son Phoenix field Office Enforcement and Removal Operations U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement C: (602) 723·7009 0: (602) 257·5962 ._,;lt('n M u•f'i\3t foml. tl 316717.pdf 83K A042209466 ERCO Lewis G4S TransportVolume 481, United States Supreme Court OpinionsLouisell was not "subjected to compelling influences, psychological ploys, or direct questioning" from police officers, Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987), and thus the admission of her statements to her grandmother did not violate her Fifth Amendment rights. D.Opinion for United States v. Rafael Romero, A/K/A "Ralphy", Albert Rodriguez and Rafael Santos, 897 F.2d 47 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.Located roughly 30 miles from Tucson, the old mining town of Oracle, Arizona, has an interesting history dating back to at least the 1870s. These days, it’s a bedroom community for nearby Tucson, but all that mining history aside, what real...Arizona v. United States (2012) was a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing Arizona Senate Bill 1070. On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed S.B. 1070 (also known as the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act). It authorized state and local law enforcement to arrest individuals without a warrant under "reasonable ...Opinion for Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 107 S. Ct. 1931, 95 L. Ed. 2d 458, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 1933 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529-30 (1987). Because the detective improperly initiated these "talks" and Gates' statements were made in response to the "functional equivalent" of police interrogation, the statements should have been suppressed.Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 526-27, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 1935 (1987). ¶16 Defendant argues that he did not voluntarily initiate the post-Miranda discussion. He contends the detectives employed the warrant as a tool to get him to talk. The warrant, in conjunction with McIndoo s statement that Defendant probably already knew what happened, caused ...(Arizona v. Mauro [ (1987) 481 U.S. 520,] 527; Rhode Island v.. Innis, supra, [446 U.S.] at p. 301.)" (People v. Davis, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 554.) To determine defendant's likely perception, the statement at issue must be considered in context. Defendant is highly unlikely to have understood Schultz's statement as encouragement to continue ...Arizona v. Mauro. William Carl Mauro murdered his son in Flagstaff. Upon his arrest, he invoked the Miranda rights recited by officers. Later, his wife asked to be allowed to talk to him, and officers cautioned Mr. and Mrs. Mauro that for security, a police officer would have to be present while they spoke. This officer openly recorded the ...Opinion for Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 107 S. Ct. 1931, 95 L. Ed. 2d 458, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 1933 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.Miranda Rights are executed in the Roberson v. Arizona case when there was a miscommunication between the arresting officer and another police officer. Roberson gave an incriminating statement to one officer in direct violation of his fifth amendment rights. ... "Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987)." Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com ...In Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 527, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 1935, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987), the United States Supreme Court held that Mauro, who had invoked his right to counsel, was not subjected to the functional equivalent of interrogation when the police allowed him to speak with his wife in the presence of an officer and recorded the …Get free access to the complete judgment in STATE v. CONOVER on CaseMine.Robert Warshaw and his 13-member compliance team held a community meeting in the town of Guadalupe on Thursday night to provide updates on MCSO's compliance efforts in the Melendres v. Arpaio ...Contents xiii. 1. Enhancement Devices—Dogs 242 . United States v. Place 242. Illinois v. Caballes 246. Florida v. Jardines 249. D. Standing 250This appeal presents three questions bearing on the admissibility of confessions in criminal cases: (1) Does a suspect’s invocation of his right to counsel under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda) preclude the admission of a confession a suspect subsequently makes to a person he is unaware is functioning as an agent of law ...Losing a loved one is a challenging and emotional time, and crafting an obituary that truly captures their essence can be a daunting task. When writing an obituary for someone from Tucson, it is crucial to reflect on their life and highligh...Arizona v. Mauro is one of the leading United States Supreme Court decisions impacting law enforcement in the United States, and, in this regards, Arizona v. Mauro may be a case reference for attorneys and police officers. As a leading case, this entry about Arizona v. Mauro tries to include facts, relevant legal issues, and the Court's ... Arizona v. Mauro* UNDER MIRANDA: I. INTRODUCTION The United States Supreme Court has continuously attempted to define the scope of allowable police interrogation practices. One question that frequently arises is whether particular police conduct amounts to interrogation within the meaning of Miranda v.See Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529 (1987). With these principles in mind, we analyze whether, in the instant case, the trial court erred by suppressing the defendant's statements. III. When reviewing a trial court's order to suppress an inculpatory statement, the court reviews both factfinding and the application of law. See People v.Opinion for Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 107 S. Ct. 1931, 95 L. Ed. 2d 458, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 1933 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.Opinion for Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 107 S. Ct. 1931, 95 L. Ed. 2d 458, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 1933 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.officer involved." I14n Mauro th, Coure attemptet to resolvd thie s uncertainty.16 III. Arizona v Mauro . A. Facts and Case History In Mauro th, defendane wat s arreste fod beatinr hig infans sot n to death Afte. thr e polic advisee hidm of hi Mirandas rights he , indicated tha ht e did not wan t t o answe anr y questions an, d tha ht e People v. Orozco, California Court of Appeals 2019. Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice.Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987). B. In this case, the State challenges the suppression of five parts of a police-station dialogue between Mr. Lantz and officers after he had invoked his right to counsel.( Arizona v. Mauro [ (1987) 481 U.S. 520,] 527 [107 S.Ct. 1931, 95 L.Ed.2d 458]; Rhode Island v. Innis, supra, [446 U.S.] at p. 301 .)" ( People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 554, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 96, 115 P.3d 417.) To determine defendant's likely perception, the statement at issue must be considered in context. Defendant is highly unlikely ...Alaniz v. State, 2 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. App. 1999), 13.07, 13.19 Al-Bayyinah, State v., 356 N.C. 150, 567 S.E.2d 120 (2002), 25.03(c) Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 ...Arizona v. Mauro. Facts: Wife wanted to see husband after he was suspected of murder; the police told her it wasn't a good idea, yet she did anyway. ... Arizona v. Roberson. Where a defendant invokes his right to an attorney and is later questioned about a different crime by a different officer, the statements were inadmissible under Edwards.A later Court applied Innis in Arizona v. Mauro 14 Footnote 481 U.S. 5 2 0 (1987). to hold that a suspect who had requested an attorney was not interrogated when the police instead brought the suspect's wife, who also was a suspect, to speak with him in the police's presence. The majority emphasized that the suspect's wife had asked to ...The Original Arizona Jean Company is a clothing line that is sold exclusively at J.C. Penney’s stores. Although it is now an independent corporation, it originally started in 1990 as a private label owned by J.C. Penney.Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Agnelleo v. United States, Arizona v. Fulminante, Arizona v. Mauro and more.In Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 527, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 1935, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987), the United States Supreme Court held that Mauro, who had invoked his right to counsel, was not subjected to the functional equivalent of interrogation when the police allowed him to speak with his wife in the presence of an officer and recorded the …Read State v. Rizzo, 704 A.2d 339, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext's comprehensive legal database. All State & Fed. JX. Sign In Get a Demo Free Trial Free Trial. Opinion ... See Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 528 n. 6, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 1936 n. 6, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987) ("Our decision . . . does not overturn any of the factual ...In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the Supreme Court examined an individual's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from compelled self-incrimination in the context of custodial interrogation, and concluded that certain procedural safeguards were necessary to "dissipate the compulsion inherent ...Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, ... see also Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 527, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987) (holding that an officer's actions following the defendant's invocation of right to counsel did not amount to interrogation in violation of Miranda and upholding admission of the conversation). ...Illinois v. Perkins. Media. Oral Argument - February 20, 1990; Opinions. Syllabus ; View Case ; Petitioner Illinois . Respondent Perkins . Location Montgomery County jail. Docket no. 88-1972 . Decided by Rehnquist Court . Lower court Supreme Court of Illinois . Citation 496 US 292 (1990) Argued. Feb 20, 1990.The purpose of the strictures against selfincrimination is to prevent the police from using the coercive nature of confinement to 2 Id. See Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 474, 86 S.Ct. 1602. See Edwards v. Arizona (1981), 451 U.S. 477, 484-485, 101 S.Ct. 1880. 5 Rhode Island v.See Arizona v. Mauro (U.S. May 4, 1987), 41 Crim. L. Rptr. 3081. Adopting the defendant's position would tend to exacerbate the coercive atmosphere of the police station because it would forbid visitation by a suspect's relatives during the period before the suspect's meeting with counsel. The refusal to let relatives visit a suspect in custody ...Get free summaries of new Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One - Unpublished Opinions opinions delivered to your inbox!Get free access to the complete judgment in STATE v. CONOVER on CaseMine.What Court did Miranda v. Arizona go through? The case went to trial in an Arizona state court and the prosecutor used the confession as evidence against Miranda, who was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda's attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction.[Cite as State v. Tucker, 2003-Ohio-6056.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DOUGLAS TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant. : : : : : APPEAL NO. C-020821 TRIAL NO. B-0205503 D E C I S I O N. Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of …Dec 1, 1988 · State v. Beaty, 158 Ariz. 232, 241, 762 P.2d 519, 528 (1988) (statements to state psychiatrist volunteered by defendant and not elicited through police interrogation were admissible without Miranda warnings). In fact, the Supreme Court found that "Mauro never waived his right to have a lawyer present." Arizona v. AMENDMENT: ARIZONA V. MAURO. illiam Carl Mauro went to the local discount . store and told em-ployees that he had just killed his son. The employees called the police to report the crime. Mauro told the police he had murdered his son and took them to the location of his child's body. The police at that And, in the case Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987), it was determined that a conversation between a suspect and a spouse, which is recorded in the presence of an officer, does not constitute the functional equivalent of an interrogation and is, therefore, admissible in court.In the case of Arizona V Mauro the Court held that a suspect who had requested for an attorney was not 'interrogated' by bringiing his wife instead who was also a suspect to speak with him in police presence. The dissent argued that the police had exploited the wife's request to talk to the husband in a custodial setting to create a sitiation the police were …In each of the over 100 cases summarized, author Tony Mauro succinctly describes the decision, provides background and facts of the case, the vote and highlights of the decision with verbatim excerpts, and, in conclusion, discusses the long-term impact of the decision on United States citizens and U.S. society. ... Miranda v. Arizona (1966) In ...A later divided Court applied Innis in Arizona v. Mauro 374 to hold that a suspect who had requested an attorney was not "interrogated" by bringing instead the suspect's wife, who also was a suspect, to speak with him in police presence. The majority emphasized that the suspect's wife had asked to speak with her husband, the meeting was ...In Arizona v. Mauro (1987) 481 U.S. 520 [ 95 L.Ed.2d 458] (Mauro) the defendant Mauro was taken into custody and read his Miranda rights. He refused to …Mauro attempted to suppress the evidence, claiming that the police acquired it in violation of his Miranda rights. Mauro was convicted of child abuse and first degree murder, but the Arizona Supreme Court reversed this conviction based on the court's interpretation of Rhode Island vs. Innis. Mauro was convicted of murder and child abuse, and sentenced to death. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed. 149 Ariz. 24, 716 P.2d 393 (1986). It found that by allowing Mauro to speak with his wife in the presence of a police officer, the detectives interrogated Mauro within the meaning of Miranda.A comprehensive list of all case law citations in the Constitution Annotated alongside the Constitution Annotated essays in which the citations are located.Louisell was not "subjected to compelling influences, psychological ploys, or direct questioning" from police officers, Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987), and thus the admission of her statements to her grandmother did not violate her Fifth Amendment rights. D.The Arizona Supreme Court correctly applied the Innis standard when it held that "the admission of a tape-recorded conversation between [Mauro] and his wife violated his …1490 Table of Authorities (References are to section numbers) Table of Cases A A.B. v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., 2015 WL 1526671 (S.D. Ind. 2015), 14.18CONVERSATION: Arizona v. Mauro, -U.S. __, 107 S. Ct. 1931, 95 L. Ed. 2d 458 (1987). On November 23, 1982, William Mauro was arrested by the Flagstaff, Arizona Police Department for the murder of his nine year old son, David.' Mauro freely admitted the killing and led the Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 526-27, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987) (citing Innis, 446 U.S. at 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682). The Supreme Court indicated that whether a practice "is designed to elicit an incriminating response" is a factor in determining whether the practice is "reasonably likely" to elicit an incriminating response.Title U.S. Reports: Greer, Warden v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (1987). Contributor Names Powell, Lewis F., Jr. (Judge)Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987); Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). Next, the appellants assert that their motion to suppress was improperly denied where the police lacked probable cause to stop their vehicle and arrest them. We disagree.May 10, 2011 · Arizona v. Mauro. William Carl Mauro murdered his son in Flagstaff. Upon his arrest, he invoked the Miranda rights recited by officers. Later, his wife asked to be allowed to talk to him, and officers cautioned Mr. and Mrs. Mauro that for security, a police officer would have to be present while they spoke. Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 526 (1987). Here the officers both told the defendant that they possessed incontrovertible evidence of his involvement in the crime and offered to bring any cooperation on his part to the attention of the district attorney. They also told the defendant that he might wish to do some "soul-searching" or make peace ...Compare Arizona v. Mauro 481 U.S. 520 -- Open taping of conversation between defendant and his wife (at her insistence) not the equivalent of interrogation. Defendant told her not to answer questions until consulting with lawyer. Tape was used to rebut claim of insanity. ... Edwards v. Arizona (1980), 451 U.S. 477 ...Mar 19 2018 Signed a 1 year $880,000 contract with New York (NYG) Mar 16 2018 Released by Arizona (ARI), clearing $2.8M in cap. Jan 13 2017 Signed a 2 year $5.8 million contract extension with Arizona (ARI) Mar 3 2016 Signed a contract with Arizona (ARI) Nov 13 2014. Aug 30 2014 Waived by Pittsburgh (PIT)The Arizona Supreme Court was correct to note that there was a "possibility" that Mauro would incriminate himself while talking to his wife. It also emphasized that the officers were aware of that possibility when they agreed to allow the Mauros to talk to each other. 6 But the actions in this case were far less questionable than the "subtle ... Hailey v. State, 413 S.W.3d 457, 474 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, pet. ref’d). A case that is instructive to the outcome of this issue is Arizona v. Mauro. In Mauro, the police arrested the defendant and took him to the local police station. 481 U.S. at 522. Miranda v. Arizona. Law enforcement officers must give Miranda warnings prior to "questioning initiated on legal enforcement officers after a person does been taken into custody otherwise otherwise deprived are him freedom of action in any significant way." 1 Annotation Dirty v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966) (emphasis added).Justia › US Law › Case Law › Arizona Case Law › Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions Decisio, Turquoise has been a popular gemstone for centuries, and Kingman Arizona, CONVERSATION: Arizona v. Mauro, -U.S. __, 107 S. Ct. 1931, 95 L. Ed. 2d 458 (1987). On November 23, , Briefly summarized, Landor argues (1) that the stat, And, in the case Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1, The “5 C’s” of Arizona are cattle, climate, cotton, copper and citrus. His, Is there a right to remain silent in civil cases? In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case calle, View WK 2 CRJ 514 Assignment Miranda vs Arizona.docx , Summary of this case from People v. Saucedo. See 4, (Arizona v. Mauro [(1987) 481 U.S. 520,] 527; Rhode Isla, Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987) Arizona v. Mauro. No. 85-21, Case opinion for County Court, New York,Westchester County. PEO, According to Avvo, Class 4 felonies in Arizona include theft, p, STATE of Louisiana v. James E. COPELAND. No. 87-KA-0128. Supre, Jennifer is a partner at Larsen, Edlund, and Ernest,PC. A grat, Jul 24, 2012 · 1 CA-CR 11-0408. 07-24-2012. STATE OF ARIZONA, , to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). Th, Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing t.