Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

Taylor v. Maddox

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
366 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2004)


Facts

Around 11:30 p.m., police officers and detectives arrested 16-year-old Leif Taylor (plaintiff) as a suspect in a shooting death. Detectives questioned Taylor for over two hours. It was disputed whether the detectives advised Taylor of his Miranda rights prior to the questioning. During the interrogation, Taylor repeatedly denied any involvement in the shooting and frequently asked for his mother and a lawyer. The detectives denied Taylor access to both. There was no audio or video recording of the questioning. Around 2:30 a.m., Taylor waived his Miranda rights and made an 11-minute confession on audio tape. After Taylor made the confession, the detectives permitted him to make a phone call to his attorney. During the phone call, he detailed what transpired during the interrogation. The State of California charged Taylor with first-degree felony murder and second-degree robbery. At trial, Taylor filed a motion to suppress the audio confession, arguing that the detectives obtained it illegally. At the suppression hearing, Taylor argued that he repeatedly asked for a lawyer during the questioning. Taylor testified that the detectives threatened him with a long prison sentence if he did not confess. Explaining why he gave the confession, Taylor said he was tired and thought he could clear up the matter later. One of the detectives, the only witness for the state, provided vague and contradictory testimony. The detective said he could not recall whether he threatened Taylor or if Taylor asked for a lawyer. The attorney’s testimony corroborated Taylor’s version of events. The court denied Taylor’s motion to suppress. The jury convicted Taylor, and he appealed. While incarcerated, Taylor petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court against Thomas Maddox (defendant) under the Federal Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The district court denied Taylor’s petition. Taylor appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kozinski, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 499,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 499,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers


Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial