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 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Tannergreen2 sentences2019See People v Tanner, 496 Mich 199, 207 ; 853 NW2d 653 (2014). 2019See People v Tanner, 496 Mich 199, 207 ; 853 NW2d 653 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Putmangreen2 sentences2016See People v Putman, 309 Mich App 240, 245 ; 870 NW2d 593 (2015) (explaining that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless objection). 2016See People v Putman, 309 Mich App 240, 245 ; 870 NW2d 593 (2015) (explaining that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless objection). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Cetlinski
green
2 sentences2022It is well settled that “[t]he use of a defendant’s silence during contact with police that does not occur at the time of arrest in the face of accusation for impeachment purposes does not violate the Fifth Amendment or the Michigan Constitution.” People v Cetlinski, 435 Mich 742, 760 ; 460 NW2d 534 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2022It is well settled that “[t]he use of a defendant’s silence during contact with police that does not occur at the time of arrest in the face of accusation for impeachment purposes does not violate the Fifth Amendment or the Michigan Constitution.” People v Cetlinski, 435 Mich 742, 760 ; 460 NW2d 534 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Solmonson
green
2 sentences2020At the outset, we note that “[t]he defendant’s right to due process is implicated only where his silence is attributable to either an invocation of his Fifth Amendment right or his reliance on the Miranda1 warnings.” People v Solmonson, 261 Mich App 657, 664-665 ; 683 NW2d 761 (2004) (citations omitted). 2020At the outset, we note that “[t]he defendant’s right to due process is implicated only where his silence is attributable to either an invocation of his Fifth Amendment right or his reliance on the Miranda1 warnings.” People v Solmonson, 261 Mich App 657, 664-665 ; 683 NW2d 761 (2004) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Solmonson
green
2 sentences2020At the outset, we note that “[t]he defendant’s right to due process is implicated only where his silence is attributable to either an invocation of his Fifth Amendment right or his reliance on the Miranda1 warnings.” People v Solmonson, 261 Mich App 657, 664-665 ; 683 NW2d 761 (2004) (citations omitted). 2020At the outset, we note that “[t]he defendant’s right to due process is implicated only where his silence is attributable to either an invocation of his Fifth Amendment right or his reliance on the Miranda1 warnings.” People v Solmonson, 261 Mich App 657, 664-665 ; 683 NW2d 761 (2004) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2018The arresting officer read defendant his Miranda1 warnings, and defendant chose to remain silent. 1 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). -1- Defendant first claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. 2018The arresting officer read defendant his Miranda1 warnings, and defendant chose to remain silent. 1 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). -1- Defendant first claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.