Dan Young, Jr. v. Jonathan R. Walls, Warden, Menard Correctional Center, â€

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a habeas petitioner with an IQ of 56 was capable of understanding the Miranda warnings because he “had enough awareness (the state court found
• noting that “when a defendant’s condition is stable, evidence adduced after trial allows a reliable reconstruction of the defendant’s mental state at trial”
• noting that Young knew that a “PD” was a public defender and knew the purpose that a trial serves
• purpose of Miranda warnings is “to protect the suspect’s privilege against compulsory self-incrimination”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).