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 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2010Any further “statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise.” Id. at 474 . “[This] privilege is asserted to spare the accused from having to reveal, directly or indirectly, his knowledge of facts relating him to the offense or from having to share his thoughts and beliefs with the Government.” Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 595 (1990) (citing Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 212-13 (1988)). 1994At this point, the Court said, the individual has shown an intention “to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise.” Id. | 1 | 5 |
Pennsylvania v. Munizgreen1 sentence2010Any further “statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise.” Id. at 474 . “[This] privilege is asserted to spare the accused from having to reveal, directly or indirectly, his knowledge of facts relating him to the offense or from having to share his thoughts and beliefs with the Government.” Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 595 (1990) (citing Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 212-13 (1988)). | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2010Any further “statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise.” Id. at 474 . “[This] privilege is asserted to spare the accused from having to reveal, directly or indirectly, his knowledge of facts relating him to the offense or from having to share his thoughts and beliefs with the Government.” Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 595 (1990) (citing Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 212-13 (1988)). | 1 | 1 |
Michigan v. Mosleygreen1 sentence1994Subsequently, in discussing the scope of the foregoing Miranda passage, the Supreme Court said: “Clearly, therefore, neither this passage nor any other passage in the Miranda opinion can sensibly be read to create a per se proscription of indefinite duration upon any further questioning by any police officer on any subject, once the person in custody has indicated a desire to remain silent.” Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 102-03 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.