Connection lost
Server error
Oregon v. Bradshaw Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: After a suspect invoked his right to counsel, he asked police, “What is going to happen to me now?” The Supreme Court held this question initiated further communication, permitting police to re-engage him and validly obtain a waiver and confession.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the “initiation” exception to the Edwards v. Arizona rule, establishing a two-part test for the admissibility of statements made after a suspect invokes the right to counsel: (1) suspect initiation, and (2) a knowing and intelligent waiver.
Oregon v. Bradshaw Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
After being questioned about a death, respondent James Bradshaw was arrested and advised of his Miranda rights. He denied involvement in the fatal traffic accident and then invoked his right to counsel by stating, “I do want an attorney before it goes very much further.” Police immediately ceased the interrogation. While being transported from the police station to the county jail, Bradshaw asked a police officer, “Well, what is going to happen to me now?” The officer reminded Bradshaw that he did not have to speak and had requested an attorney. Bradshaw stated he understood. A conversation ensued, during which the officer suggested a polygraph examination. The next day, after receiving Miranda warnings again and signing a written waiver, Bradshaw took the polygraph. Upon being told the examiner did not believe his story, Bradshaw confessed to driving the vehicle involved in the fatal accident. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the confession, but the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, holding his question did not constitute initiation under Edwards v. Arizona.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: After an accused has invoked the Fifth Amendment right to counsel, does a question such as, “Well, what is going to happen to me now?” constitute an “initiation” of further communication that permits police to resume interrogation?
Yes. Bradshaw’s question initiated communication, and his subsequent waiver of the right Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eius
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
After an accused has invoked the Fifth Amendment right to counsel, does a question such as, “Well, what is going to happen to me now?” constitute an “initiation” of further communication that permits police to resume interrogation?
Conclusion
This case provides a framework for analyzing post-invocation statements by defining "initiation" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna
Legal Rule
Once an accused invokes the right to counsel, further interrogation is prohibited Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
Legal Analysis
The plurality opinion established a two-part inquiry for assessing the admissibility of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint o
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- After a suspect invokes the right to counsel, police may resume