E.D. New York· 9/28/1999

United States v. Rodrigues

Citations

68 F. Supp. 2d 178
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23672
1999 WL 761171

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).

Judges: Trager

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

32 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Rodrigues

8 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.