Search results
In a 6-3 judgment delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that Chavez did not deprive Martinez of his Fifth Amendment rights. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia, joined Justice Thomas.
4 gru 2002 · MARTINEZ. No. 01-1444. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 4, 2002. Decided May 27, 2003. While respondent Martinez was being treated for gunshot wounds received during an altercation with police, he was interrogated by petitioner Chavez, a patrol supervisor.
27 maj 2003 · While respondent Martinez was being treated for gunshot wounds received during an altercation with police, he was interrogated by petitioner Chavez, a patrol supervisor. Martinez admitted that he used heroin and had taken an officer’s gun during the incident.
Facts. While riding his bicycle home from work, Martinez was stopped by police officers who were investigating narcotics violations. Whey they attempted to handcuff him, a struggle ensued, during which Martinez was shot. The wound to Martinez resulted in permanent paralysis and loss of vision.
6 lis 2002 · Chavez v. Martinez Are a suspect's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to be free from coercive questioning violated when he was subjected to coercive questioning while in police custody, even if his coerced statements were never used against him in a criminal case?
During a confrontation with two police officers, Martinez grabbed one of the officer's guns, and the other officer shot Martinez multiple times. The officers arrested Martinez and went with him to the hospital, where Martinez underwent emergency medical treatment.
The Dissent by Professor Cohn concludes that Sgt. Chavez did violate Martinez's Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
