United States v. Lashawn Lowell Banks (2002)
green
· 48 citation events
across 12 courts.
Showing the 16 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200220142026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
United States v. Banks (2003)
The apartment was “small,” 282 F. 3d 699, 704 (CA9 2002), and a man may walk the length of today’s small apartment in 15 seconds.
green
United States v. Tomas Chavez-Miranda (2002)
Id. at 708 (Fisher, J. dissenting).
Fisher, J. dissenting
green
United States v. Brad Fussell (2013)
Fussell has failed to show his confession *662 was anything but “the product of rational intellect and a free will,” United States v. Banks, 282 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir.2002), rev’d on other grounds, 540 U.S. 31 , 124 S.Ct. 521 , 157 L.Ed.2d 343 (2003).
green
Matylinsky v. Budge (2009)
United States v. Banks, 282 F.3d 699, 706 (2002), rev’d on other grounds, 540 U.S. 31 , 124 S.Ct. 521 , 157 *1096 L.Ed.2d 343 (2003); see also United States v. Kelley, 953 F.2d 562, 565 (9th Cir.1992).
green
Frank Matylinsky v. Michael Budge (2009)
United States v. Banks, 282 F.3d 699, 706 (2002), rev’d on other grounds, 540 U.S. 31 (2003); see also United States v. Kelley, 953 F.2d 562, 565 (9th Cir. 1992).
green
United States v. Howell (2005)
The totality of the circumstances suggests that Howell’s admission was “the product of a rational intellect and a free will.” United States v. Banks, 282 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir.2002) (citation and quotation marks omitted), rev’d on other grounds, 540 U.S. 31 , 124 S.Ct. 521 , 157 L.Ed.2d 343 (2003); United States v. Kelley, 953 F.2d 562, 565 (9th Cir.1992).
green
United States v. Michael Bynum (2004)
United States v. Banks, 282 F.3d 699, 704 (9th Cir.2002).
green
United States v. Clarence Pennington (2003)
In United States v. Banks, 282 F.3d 699, 704 (9th Cir.2002), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1252 , 154 L.Ed.2d 1018 (2003), the Court held that officers acting without exigent circumstances to execute a search warrant in pursuit of drugs violated the Fourth Amendment by waiting only fifteen to twenty seconds after announcing their presence.
green
United States v. Roots (2002)
See, e.g., United States v. Chavez-Miranda, 306 F.3d 973, 980 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Banks, 282 F.3d 699, 703-05 (9th Cir.2002), petition for cert. filed, No. 02—473 (Sept. 23, 2002).
green
United States v. McKee (2016)
“A confession made in a drug or alcohol induced state ... may be deemed voluntary if it remains ‘the product of a rational intellect and a free will.’ ” United States v. Banks, 282 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir.2002), rev’d on other grounds, 540 U.S. 31 , 124 S.Ct. 521 , 157 L.Ed.2d 343 (2003) (quoting Medeiros v. Shimoda, 889 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir.1989)).
green
Commonwealth v. Cleveland (2010)
See United States v. Peters, 435 F.3d 746, 751 (7th Cir. 2006) (defendant did not unambiguously invoke his right to counsel when, after a significant time period elapsed following reading of Miranda warnings, during which he waived right to attorney and interrogation began, he stated “I’d like to get to that part now,” in reference to officer’s earlier statement, at time that warnings were read, that defendant would be taken to pretrial services to determine whether he was f…
defendant’s assertion during interrogation “that he wanted to consult with a lawyer about the possibility of making a ‘deal’ in exchange for divulging information about his suppliers” was not an invocation of right to counsel concerning questions on other matters
green
State v. Hoffman (2003)
In United States v. Banks (9th Cir. 2001), 282 F.3d 699 , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals articulated the general rule that “[a] confession made in a drug or alcohol induced state... may be deemed voluntary if it remains ‘the product of rational intellect and a free will’...” Banks, 282 F.3d at 706 (citin g Medeiros v. Shimoda (9th Cir. 1989), 889 F.2d 819, 823 ).
green
United States v. Adams (2003)
See United States v. Banks, 282 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir.2002), cert. granted, 537 U.S. 1187 , 123 S.Ct. 1252 , 154 L.Ed.2d 1018 (Feb. 24, 2003); United States v. Marts, 986 F.2d 1216, 1219-20 (8th Cir.1993); United States v. Holmes, 183 F.Supp.2d 108, 111 (D.Me.2002); United States v. Gonzalez, 164 F.Supp.2d 119 , 124 n. 2 (D.Mass.2001).
green
United States v. Christopher T. Langford (2002)
See United States v. Banks, 282 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Dice, 200 F.3d 978, 986-87 (6th Cir.2000); United States v. Marts, 986 F.2d 1216, 1219-20 (8th Cir.1993); Mazepink v. State, 336 Ark. 171 , 987 S.W.2d 648, 656-58 (1999).
green
United States v. Langford, Christophe (2002)
See United States v. Banks, 282 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Dice, 200 F.3d 978, 986-87 (6th Cir. 2000); United States v. Marts, 986 F.2d 1216, 1219-20 (8th Cir. 1993); Mazepink v. State, 987 S.W.2d 648, 656-58 (Ark. 1999).
green
State v. Walker (2003)
See United States v. Banks, 282 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2002) (defendant’s assertion that he wanted to consult a lawyer *946 about making a deal in exchange for information about his suppliers not an invocation of his right to counsel); United States v. Jardina, 747 F.2d 945 (5th Cir. 1984) (defendant selectively waived right to remain silent and indicated he wished his attorney to work out cooperative deal with government in future); State v. Shifflett, 199 Conn. 718 , 508 A.2d …
defendant’s assertion that he wanted to consult a lawyer *946 about making a deal in exchange for information about his suppliers not an invocation of his right to counsel