Search results
Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990) Illinois v. Perkins. No. 88-1972. Argued Feb. 20, 1990. Decided June 4, 1990. 496 U.S. 292. Syllabus. Police placed undercover agent Parisi in a jail cellblock with respondent Perkins, who was incarcerated on charges unrelated to the murder that Parisi was investigating.
Brief Fact Summary. An undercover police agent was placed in jail with the suspect and got them to elicit incriminating statements. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Miranda warnings are not required when an undercover agent asks questions that could result in incriminating statements. Facts.
20 lut 1990 · establish that Defendant Perkins in this case perceived no pressures whatsoever to speak when making his incriminating statements, but, rather, he was simply killing time with boastful admissions to those whom he believed to be co-conspirators in a jail break. After detailing how the privilege against self
Facts. An informant told police that Lloyd Perkins (defendant) confessed to the murder of Richard Stephenson. Police then placed the informant and an undercover officer into the Montgomery County jail where Perkins was being held on unrelated charges.
Citation: 496 U.S. 292. How the court took jurisdiction: Cert. What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued) Who was the chief justice: William Rehnquist. Who wrote the majority opinion: Anthony Kennedy.
Supreme Court of the United States. 496 U.S. 292, 110 L. Ed. 2d 243, 110 S. Ct. 2394, 1990 U.S. LEXIS 2885, SCDB 1989-102. No. 88-1972. 1990-06-04. Argued February 20, 1990. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and White, Blackmun, Stevens, O’Connor, and Scalia, JJ., joined.
496 U.S. 292, 110 S. Ct. 2394, 110 L. Ed.2d 243 (1990) Perkins was in jail on suspicion for murder. His cellmate (and prison snitch), Charlton, told police that Perkins had confessed to him.
