Connection lost
Server error
YARBOROUGH v. ALVARADO 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: A 17-year-old suspect was interviewed by police for two hours without Miranda warnings. The Supreme Court held that a state court’s finding that he was not “in custody” was not an unreasonable application of federal law, thus barring federal habeas relief under AEDPA.
Legal Significance: The case clarifies that under AEDPA’s deferential standard, a state court’s application of the objective Miranda custody test is not “unreasonable” for failing to consider a suspect’s age, as age was not a “clearly established” factor in the custody analysis at the time.
YARBOROUGH v. ALVARADO 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
Michael Alvarado, five months short of his 18th birthday, was a suspect in an attempted robbery and murder. A police detective contacted his parents, who brought him to the sheriff’s station for an interview. The parents waited in the lobby while Alvarado was questioned by the detective for approximately two hours in a small interview room. Alvarado was never given Miranda warnings, nor was he told he was under arrest or that he was free to leave. During the interview, the detective pressed Alvarado, stating she was giving him an “opportunity to tell the truth,” and he eventually made incriminating statements, admitting his involvement in the crime and helping to hide the murder weapon. After the interview concluded, Alvarado was permitted to leave with his parents. His statements were later used to convict him of second-degree murder. The California state appellate court, on direct review, found the interview was noncustodial. Alvarado later sought federal habeas corpus relief, arguing the statements were obtained in violation of Miranda.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), was a state court’s determination that a 17-year-old suspect was not “in custody” for Miranda purposes an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law because the court did not explicitly consider the suspect’s age in its analysis?
No. The state court’s decision was not an objectively unreasonable application 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 pari
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
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), was a state court’s determination that a 17-year-old suspect was not “in custody” for Miranda purposes an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law because the court did not explicitly consider the suspect’s age in its analysis?
Conclusion
This decision significantly narrowed the scope of federal habeas review under AEDPA, 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 f
Legal Rule
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), a federal court may grant habeas relief 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 no
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis focused on the intersection of the substantive Miranda custody 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 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 e
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A state court’s ruling that a suspect was not in Miranda