green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
30.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1999 ·
…in other words, the police must somehow overreach by exploiting a weakness or condition known to exist.
at p. 1321
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 43 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Wagner
he police must somehow overreach by exploiting a weakness or condition known to exist.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Stewart
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
in other words, the police must somehow overreach by exploiting a weakness or condition known to exist.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Singleton
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
in other words, the police must somehow overreach by exploiting a weakness or condition known to exist.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Angle
See United States v. New, 491 F.3d 369, 373-74 (8th Cir. 2007); United States v. Jamison, 509 F.3d 623, 628-31 (4th Cir. 2007); United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir 1994); United States v. Martin, 781 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1985); People v. Theander, 295 P.3d 960, 966-69 (Colo. 2013); State v. Rogers, 848 N.W.2d 257, 262-65 (N.D. 2014). -6- #29208 at 479, 86 S. Ct. at 1630.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hallford
See, e.g., United States v. Jamison, 509 F.3d 623, 625, 631 (4th Cir. 2007) (no Miranda custody when hospitalized individual “solicited police assistance,” thereby “initiating a police investigation”); United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir. 1994) (no Miranda custody when individual was questioned by police at medical care center in part because individual “was free to check himself out of the" care center”), United States v. Martin, 781 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1985) (no Miranda custody when a hospitalized individual “spoke with each of the officers voluntarily,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Parker
(2×)
“In other words, the police must somehow overreach by exploiting a weakness or condition known to exist.” United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 906 , 115 S.Ct. 271 , 130 L.Ed.2d 189 (1994); Miller v. Dugger, 838 F.2d 1530, 1537 (11th Cir.) (“Connelly makes clear that even the interrogators’ knowledge that a suspect may have mental problems does not make the suspect’s statements involuntary unless ‘[t]he police exploited this weakness with coercive tactics’ ”) (quoting Connelly, 479 U.S. at 165 , 107 S.Ct. 515 ), cert. denied, 486 U.S…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Rogers
See United States v. Jamison, 509 F.3d 623, 631 (4th Cir.2007) (holding defendant was not in custody when police questioned him in hospital emergency room following treatment for a self-inflicted gunshot wound); United States v. Martin, 781 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir.1985) (defendant, who had been making bombs and was injured in explosion, was not in custody when officers went to hospital and questioned him; officers did nothing to bring about or extend his hospitalization); United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.1994) (defendant was not in custody at the time of the questioning,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cash
See United States v. Hack, 782 F.2d 862, 866 (10th Cir.1986) (no coercion where agent interviewing defendants at hospital two days after one had sustained gunshot wound in the mouth “observed that both defendants remained mentally alert and were conversant with the details of the hijacking” under investigation); United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.1994) (no coercion where FBI agent observed that defendant, who had recently awoken from a 31-day coma, “seemed responsive and coherent when he was asked about himself, his relatives and the geographical area” even though…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. WARRIOR
Compare Effland v. People, 240 P.3d 868, 874-76 (Colo. 2010) (hospitalized defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes, even though he was informed that he was not under arrest and his mobility was limited for medical reasons; officer was posted outside hospital room; officers ignored defendant’s repeated statements that he did not wish to speak with them; officers sat between defendant and the closed door; defendant was emotionally distraught; officers’ questions provided details of the incident and were designed to elicit agreement from defendant); and Louis, 240 Kan. at 183-84 (hospit…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thompson
The jury can observe the witness during the identification process and is able to evaluate the reliability of the initial identification.” Robertson, 19 F.3d at 1323 (quotation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Logan
However, even in such cases, for a confession to be involuntary, “the police must somehow overreach by exploiting a weakness or condition known to *1183 exist.” United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 906 , 115 S.Ct. 271 , 130 L.Ed.2d 189 (1994); see also United States v. Guerro, 983 F.2d 1001, 1004 (10th Cir.1993) (same).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Fisher
Coercion may also include situations where “the police ... somehow overreach by exploiting a weakness or condition known to exist.” United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lutz
However, even in such cases, for a confession to be involuntary, “the police must somehow overreach by exploiting a weakness or condition known to exist.” United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S, 906, 115 S.Ct. 271 , 130 L.Ed.2d 189 (1994); see also United States v. Guerra, 983 F.2d 1001, 1004 (10th Cir.1993) (same); ....
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Morris
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See United States v. Bautista, 145 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir.1998); United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Murl Wayne Morris, A/K/A Raul Franklin, A/K/A Roger Ward Conway, A/K/A Merle Franklin, A/K/A Roger Ward, A/K/A Steve Mills
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See United States v. Bautista, 145 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir.1998); United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.1994). 7 Waiver of one's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires that the individual "voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently" waive his constitutional privilege.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Espinoza
Macsenti v. Becker, 237 F.3d 1223, 1238 (10th Cir.2001); United States v. Maden, 114 F.3d 155, 158 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1324 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Burson, 952 F.2d 1196, 1201-02 (10th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wacker v. State of Kansas
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“In other words, the police must somehow overreach by exploiting a weakness or condition known to exist.” United States v. Robertson , 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Miles
“The only relevant inquiry is ‘how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.’” United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting Perdue, 8 F.3d at 1463 ) (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 906 , 115 S.Ct. 271 , 130 L.Ed.2d 189 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bond v. Walker
These are matters within the discretion of the court.’ ”) (quoting Domina), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1258 , 117 S.Ct. 2424 , 138 L.Ed.2d 187 (1997); United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1323 (10th Cir.) (where other evidence against defendant is strong, “[i]n such circumstances, as the Domina court noted, we are less likely to find abuse of discretion in permitting the in-court identification....
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Creech
“The only relevant inquiry is ‘how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.’ ” United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting Perdue, 8 F.3d at 1463 ) (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 906 , 115 S.Ct. 271 , 130 L.Ed.2d 189 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hawkins
We believe the proper analysis here is to examine the record to determine “whether the in-court identification procedure was so suggestive that it denied defendant due process of law.” United States v. Kimball, 73 F.3d 269, 273 (10th Cir. 1995); United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1323 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Aigbevbolle, 772 F.2d -6- 652, 653 (10th Cir. 1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Quantis Hawkins
"Any suggestiveness in the courtroom identification procedure is a matter for the jury to consider in weighing the persuasiveness of the witness' testimony." Id. 21 We believe the proper analysis here is to examine the record to determine "whether the in-court identification procedure was so suggestive that it denied defendant due process of law." United States v. Kimball, 73 F.3d 269, 273 (10th Cir.1995); United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1323 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Aigbevbolle, 772 F.2d 652, 653 (10th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Timothy C.
See, e.g., United States v. D.F., 115 F.3d 413, 419 (7th Cir.1997) (relying on Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)); see also United States v. Wolf, 813 F.2d 970, 974 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ramirez-Pinon
United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1323 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Domina, 784 F.2d 1361, 1367-69 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Luis Ramirez-Pinon
The jury can observe the witness during the identification process and is able to evaluate the reliability of the initial identification. 64 United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1323 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Domina, 784 F.2d 1361, 1367-69 (9th Cir.1986) (citations omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Williams
In making our determination, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.1994), and we uphold the district court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Villota-Gomez
"The only relevant inquiry is ‘how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his situation.’ ” United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.) (quoting Perdue, 8 F.3d at 1463 ) (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 906 , 115 S.Ct. 271 , 130 L.Ed.2d 189 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bailey
“The only relevant inquiry is ‘how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.’” United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting Per-due, 8 F.3d at 1463 ) (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)), cert, denied, 513 U.S. 906 , 115 S.Ct. 271 , 130 L.Ed.2d 189 (1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rith
United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1320-21 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 906 , 115 S.Ct. 271 , 130 L.Ed.2d 189 (1994); United States v. Short, 947 F.2d 1445, 1449 (10th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Headdress
See also United States v. Ellison, 791 F.2d 821, 823 (10th Cir.1986); United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.1994) (defendant not in custody at hospital); United States v. Erekson, 70 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir.1995) (no custody, defendant came to interview voluntarily).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Monroe
“Only when there is a ‘very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification’ is the issue of the credibility of the identification not left to the jury to decide.” United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1323 (10th Cir.) (quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 , 88 S.Ct. 967, 971 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 271 , 130 L.Ed.2d 189 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Willie W. Nickel v. Robert D. Hannigan, Warden, Hutchinson Correctional Facility, and Attorney General of Kansas
However, even in such cases, for a confession to be involuntary, “the police must somehow overreach by exploiting a weakness or condition known to exist.” United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 271 , 130 L.Ed.2d 189 (1994); see also United States v. Guerro, 983 F.2d 1001, 1004 (10th Cir.1993) (same); Thompson v. Cox, 352 F.2d 488, 489 (10th Cir.1965) (holding that the petitioner’s confession to police was voluntary where there was no evidence that any information gained by police from the lie detector test or the interrogation of t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Lapointe
“The defense was free to present to the jury evidence of the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the interview, which under these facts goes to the weight and reliability, not the admissibility, of the defendant’s statements.” United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1322 (10th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James B. Kimball
United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1323 (10th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 271 , 130 L.Ed.2d 189 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Morgan
“The only relevant inquiry is ‘how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.’ ” United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting Perdue, 8 F.3d at 1463 ) (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 271 , 130 L.Ed.2d 189 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Berres
(2×)
See Fields, 132 S.Ct. at 1189 (“Relevant factors include the location of the questioning....”); see generally United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1320-21 (10th Cir.1994) (concluding a hospital interrogation was not custodial).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jamison
See United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1320-21 (10th Cir.1994) (finding defendant was not in custody even though he was interviewed by law enforcement while he was hospitalized with a head injury); United States v. Martin, 781 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir.1986) (finding that a defendant, groggy from the effects of Demerol, who spoke with detectives in his hospital room was not in custody and therefore not entitled to Miranda warnings); State v. Middleton, 854 S.W.2d 504, 516 (Mo.Ct.App.1993) (finding that a shooting suspect was not in custody during police questioning at his home in part beca…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Pontbriand
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See, *232 e.g., United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir.1994) (hospitalized suspect not in custody where officers did not restrict his freedom of movement through physical restraint or display of authority); United States v. Martin, 781 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir.1985) (hospitalized suspect not in custody where police were not responsible for hospitalization and did not unnecessarily extend it); State v. Tucker, 131 N.H. 526 , 557 A.2d 270, 272 (1989) (following the majority of state and federal authority in finding that "the restraint contemplated by Miranda is that interference …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Griffin
See United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1324 (10th Cir.1994) (noting that because testimony of probation officer was either irrelevant or more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403, district court erred in admitting testimony, but concluding that the admission of the evidence was harmless error) cf. United States v. Manarite, 44 F.3d 1407, 1418 (9th Cir.1995) (“[W]e think it obvious that evidence of a defendant’s parole status should be considered evidence of other crimes for purposes of Rule 404(b).”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Landmark Golf Ltd. Partnership v. Las Vegas Paiute Tribe
See Middlemist v. Secretary of U.S. Dept. of Interior, 824 F.Supp. 940 (D.Mont.1993), aff'd without opinion, 19 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 961 , 115 S.Ct. 420 , 130 L.Ed.2d 335 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
State of Nev. v. Hicks
See Middlemist v. Lujan, 824 F.Supp. 940 (D.Mont.1993), aff'd without opinion, 19 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 420 , 130 L.Ed.2d 335 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band, Inc. v. Zinke
See Hall, 208 F.3d at 219 (affirming dismissal without prejudice of the plaintiff’s action against tribal and federal officials pending exhaustion of tribal remedies); see also Middlemist, 824 F. Supp. at 947 , aff’d, 19 F.3d 1318 (dismissing without prejudice the plaintiff’s action against tribal and federal officials pending the exhaustion of tribal remedies).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band, Inc. v. Bernhardt
See Hall , 208 F.3d at 219 (affirming dismissal without prejudice of the plaintiff's action against tribal and federal officials pending exhaustion of tribal remedies); see also Middlemist , 824 F. Supp. at 947 , aff'd , 19 F.3d 1318 (dismissing without prejudice the plaintiff's action against tribal and federal officials pending the exhaustion of tribal remedies).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ross Middlemist, Wayne W. Maughan, Flathead Joint Board of Control
v.
Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland Area, Stanley M. Speaks Members of the Tribal Council of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Michael Pablo, Sonny Morigeau, Louis Adams, Hank Baylor
v.
Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland Area, Stanley M. Speaks Members of the Tribal Council of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Michael Pablo, Sonny Morigeau, Louis Adams, Hank Baylor
93-35315.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 6, 1994.
Published
Ross MIDDLEMIST, Wayne W. Maughan, Flathead Joint Board of
Control, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Secretary of the Interior, Bruce BABBITT; Director of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland Area, Stanley M. Speaks;
Members of the Tribal Council of the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes, Michael Pablo, Sonny Morigeau, Louis Adams,
Hank Baylor, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 93-35315.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 7, 1994.
Decided April 6, 1994.
Jon Metropoulos, Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry & Hoven, Helena, MT, for plaintiffs-appellants.
John B. Carter, Tribal Legal Dept., Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT, Peter R. Steenland, Jr. and Ellen J. Durkee, Environment & Natural Resources Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.
Harley R. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, MT, for amicus.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana; Charles C. Lovell, District Judge, Presiding.
Before: HUG, HALL, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
[*~1318]1
We affirm the district court on the basis of its well-reasoned published opinion, Middlemist v. Secretary of United States Department of Interior, 824 F.Supp. 940 (D.Mont.1993).
[*~1324]2
AFFIRMED.