prescribed rule in Utah

1997Requiring a party to show prejudice in such circumstances is to require the impossible. “ ‘To show actual prejudice, the complaining litigant would be required to discover the unknowable and to reconstruct what might have been and never was, a jury properly constituted after running the gauntlet of challenge[s] performed in accordance with the prescribed rule of the game.’ ” Blades v. DaFoe, 704 P.2d 317, 322 (Colo.1985) (quoting Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut.

1993Requiring a party to show prejudice in such circumstances is to require the impossible. “ ‘To show actual prejudice, the complaining litigant would be required to discover the unknowable and to reconstruct what might have been and never was, a jury properly constituted after running the gauntlet of challenge[s] performed in accordance with the prescribed rule of the game.’ ” Blades v. DaFoe, 704 P.2d 317, 322 (Colo.1985) (quoting Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut.

2023Thus, in articulating this right, “Miranda conditioned the admissibility at trial of any custodial confession on warning” suspects of their rights, and the “failure to give the prescribed warnings and obtain a waiver of rights before custodial questioning generally requires exclusion of any statements obtained.” Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 608 (2004) (plurality opinion). 20210766-CA 7 2023 UT App 149 State v. Uptain A. Uptain Was Subject to a Custodial Interrogation ¶17 “By custodial interrogation,” the Miranda court clarified that it meant “questioning initiated by law enforcement offi

2023See Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 608 (2004) (plurality opinion) (“[F]ailure to give the prescribed warnings and obtain a waiver of rights before custodial questioning generally requires exclusion of any statements obtained.”).

1989In State v. Andreason, 718 P.2d 400, 402 (Utah 1986), this Court prescribed the standard for appellate review when the question of improper argument is raised: The standard applicable to reviewing alleged prejudicial remarks of counsel is whether the remarks call the attention of the jurors to matters they would not be justified in considering in determining their verdict.