Cheryl Miller reports in The Recorder about the Supreme Court’s decision last week to hear People v. Allen, one issue being, as summarized by court staff (see here), “If a defendant has invoked his right to remain silent while being interrogated by a law enforcement officer, are incriminating statements obtained through a subsequent Perkins operation (i.e., the use of an undercover agent to question a jailed defendant) admissible as substantive proof of the defendant’s guilt at trial? (See Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292; Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.)” The article cites At The Lectern.