Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Georgegreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., State v. George, 311 Kan. 693 , 708, 466 P.3d 469 (2020) (the privilege "'protects any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might so be used'"); Delacruz, 307 Kan. at 534 ("a witness who has no reasonable cause to fear incrimination cannot invoke the right"); Green, 254 Kan. at 679 ("The Fifth Amendment operates only where a witness is asked to incriminate himself or herself; that is, to give testimony which could possibly expose the witness to a criminal charge."); State v. Larry, 2 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moralesgreen1 sentence2024While she may have been better off remaining silent, that is merely a benefit derived from invoking the Fifth Amendment and not a protection conferred by the privilege against self-incrimination. 445 U.S. at 126-27; see also State v. Morales, 788 N.W.2d 737, 750 (Minn. 2010) (holding witness who was granted use immunity did not have a valid Fifth Amendment privilege based on fear of a perjury prosecution). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greengreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., State v. George, 311 Kan. 693 , 708, 466 P.3d 469 (2020) (the privilege "'protects any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might so be used'"); Delacruz, 307 Kan. at 534 ("a witness who has no reasonable cause to fear incrimination cannot invoke the right"); Green, 254 Kan. at 679 ("The Fifth Amendment operates only where a witness is asked to incriminate himself or herself; that is, to give testimony which could possibly expose the witness to a criminal charge."); State v. Larry, 2 | 1 | 1 |
James v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See James v. State, 75 P.3d 1065 (Alaska App. 2003); In re Butts, 582 S.E.2d 279, 286-88 (N.C. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Buttsgreen1 sentence2004See James v. State, 75 P.3d 1065 (Alaska App. 2003); In re Butts, 582 S.E.2d 279, 286-88 (N.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Solomon
green
2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. George, 311 Kan. 693 , 708, 466 P.3d 469 (2020) (the privilege "'protects any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might so be used'"); Delacruz, 307 Kan. at 534 ("a witness who has no reasonable cause to fear incrimination cannot invoke the right"); Green, 254 Kan. at 679 ("The Fifth Amendment operates only where a witness is asked to incriminate himself or herself; that is, to give testimony which could possibly expose the witness to a criminal charge."); State v. Larry, 2 2024See, e.g., State v. George, 311 Kan. 693 , 708, 466 P.3d 469 (2020) (the privilege "'protects any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might so be used'"); Delacruz, 307 Kan. at 534 ("a witness who has no reasonable cause to fear incrimination cannot invoke the right"); Green, 254 Kan. at 679 ("The Fifth Amendment operates only where a witness is asked to incriminate himself or herself; that is, to give testimony which could possibly expose the witness to a criminal charge."); State v. Larry, 2 | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Larry
green
2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. George, 311 Kan. 693 , 708, 466 P.3d 469 (2020) (the privilege "'protects any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might so be used'"); Delacruz, 307 Kan. at 534 ("a witness who has no reasonable cause to fear incrimination cannot invoke the right"); Green, 254 Kan. at 679 ("The Fifth Amendment operates only where a witness is asked to incriminate himself or herself; that is, to give testimony which could possibly expose the witness to a criminal charge."); State v. Larry, 2 2024See, e.g., State v. George, 311 Kan. 693 , 708, 466 P.3d 469 (2020) (the privilege "'protects any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might so be used'"); Delacruz, 307 Kan. at 534 ("a witness who has no reasonable cause to fear incrimination cannot invoke the right"); Green, 254 Kan. at 679 ("The Fifth Amendment operates only where a witness is asked to incriminate himself or herself; that is, to give testimony which could possibly expose the witness to a criminal charge."); State v. Larry, 2 | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Lefkowitz v. Turley
green
2 sentences2022Ed. 2d 810 (1976) (quoting Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 , 94 S. Ct. 316 , 38 L. 2022Ed. 2d 810 (1976) (quoting Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 , 94 S. Ct. 316 , 38 L. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Baxter v. Palmigiano
green
2 sentences2022Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has explained that a person may have a valid Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination whenever asked to "answer official questions" that may result in future criminal prosecution: "[T]he Fifth Amendment 'not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.'" Baxter v. Palmi 2022Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has explained that a person may have a valid Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination whenever asked to "answer official questions" that may result in future criminal prosecution: "[T]he Fifth Amendment 'not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.'" Baxter v. Palmi | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Contreras
green
1 sentence2022State v. Contreras, 313 Kan. 996 , 999, 492 P.3d 1180 (2021). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2011Anderson, 240 Kan. at 701 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Crumm
green
2 sentences2011State v. Crumm, 232 Kan. 254, 256-57 , 654 P.2d 417 (1982) (finding no error in a trial court’s refusal to let the defendant ask questions to which the witness would assert a valid Fifth Amendment privilege); State v. Simpson, 29 Kan. 2011State v. Crumm, 232 Kan. 254, 256-57 , 654 P.2d 417 (1982) (finding no error in a trial court’s refusal to let the defendant ask questions to which the witness would assert a valid Fifth Amendment privilege); State v. Simpson, 29 Kan. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Simpson
green
2 sentences2011State v. Crumm, 232 Kan. 254, 256-57 , 654 P.2d 417 (1982) (finding no error in a trial court’s refusal to let the defendant ask questions to which the witness would assert a valid Fifth Amendment privilege); State v. Simpson, 29 Kan. 2011State v. Crumm, 232 Kan. 254, 256-57 , 654 P.2d 417 (1982) (finding no error in a trial court’s refusal to let the defendant ask questions to which the witness would assert a valid Fifth Amendment privilege); State v. Simpson, 29 Kan. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.