United States v. Rodrigues

How courts have described this case

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

• “According to the State Department, all signatory countries remedy breach of Article 36’s notification provision through traditional diplomatic, not judicial, channels.”
• reasoning, but not holding, that “the better reading of the treaty is that a foreign national does have standing to assert his or her right to consular notification under Article 36 of the Convention.”
• chronicling certain recent developments in other countries’ approaches to compulsory self-incrimination
• “There is no prohibition anywhere in the Convention against continuing to question a foreign national while awaiting consular contact.”
• \There is no prohibition anywhere in the Convention against continuing to question a foreign national while awaiting consular contact.\
• “Prejudice has never been — nor could reasonably be— found in a case where a foreign national was given, understood, and waived his or her Miranda rights.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).