186 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2025 12 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. Summersgreen2 sentences1975In reviewing a trial court’s Walker hearing decision, this Court is required to examine the record and make an independent determination of the voluntariness of the challenged statements, People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 557 ; 194 NW2d 709 (1972), People v Summers, 15 Mich App 346, 348 ; 166 NW2d 672 (1968). 1975In reviewing a trial court’s Walker hearing decision, this Court is required to examine the record and make an independent determination of the voluntariness of the challenged statements, People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 557 ; 194 NW2d 709 (1972), People v Summers, 15 Mich App 346, 348 ; 166 NW2d 672 (1968). | 4 | 7 |
People v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2019Defendant moved to suppress his confession given to law enforcement during his interrogation and was granted a -9- Walker 3 hearing. “[T]he sole purpose of the Walker hearing is to determine the fact of voluntariness and a reviewing court is concerned only with the correctness of that determination.” People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 557 ; 194 NW2d 709 (1972). 2019Defendant moved to suppress his confession given to law enforcement during his interrogation and was granted a -9- Walker 3 hearing. “[T]he sole purpose of the Walker hearing is to determine the fact of voluntariness and a reviewing court is concerned only with the correctness of that determination.” People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 557 ; 194 NW2d 709 (1972). | 3 | 23 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2016On appeal, defendant first argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a Walker1 hearing in order to challenge the admissibility of incriminating statements made by defendant to the police, where the statements were made in violation of Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), and where the statements were made involuntarily.2 In that same vein, defendant also maintains that the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte conduct a Walker hearing. 1 People v Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich 331 ; 132 NW2d 87 (1965). 2 Whether counsel was ineffect 2016On appeal, defendant first argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a Walker1 hearing in order to challenge the admissibility of incriminating statements made by defendant to the police, where the statements were made in violation of Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), and where the statements were made involuntarily.2 In that same vein, defendant also maintains that the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte conduct a Walker hearing. 1 People v Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich 331 ; 132 NW2d 87 (1965). 2 Whether counsel was ineffect | 3 | 18 |
People v. Walkergreen2 sentences2019In Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich 331 , the Michigan Supreme Court merely remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to hold the Walker hearing, allowing defendant to testify without waiving his right to remain silent during a retrial, if any. 2019In Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich 331 , the Michigan Supreme Court merely remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to hold the Walker hearing, allowing defendant to testify without waiving his right to remain silent during a retrial, if any. | 2 | 54 |
People v. McGillengreen2 sentences1978In accord with People v McGillen #1, 392 Mich 251 ; 220 NW2d 677 (1974), we have reviewed the entire transcript of defendant’s Walker hearing, and have independently assessed the voluntariness of defendant’s statements. 1978In accord with People v McGillen #1, 392 Mich 251 ; 220 NW2d 677 (1974), we have reviewed the entire transcript of defendant’s Walker hearing, and have independently assessed the voluntariness of defendant’s statements. | 2 | 10 |
Jackson v. Dennogreen2 sentences2017The purpose of a Walker hearing is to protect "the defendant's constitutional [due-process] right at some stage in the proceedings to object to the use of the confession and to have a fair hearing and a reliable determination on the issue of voluntariness, a determination uninfluenced by the truth or falsity of the confession." Jackson v. Denno , 378 U.S. 368 , 376-377, 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964) (citation omitted). 3 This right remains protected at trial if the jury is limited to considering the "weight and credibility" of the statement, i.e., if defendant is free to argue, and the 2017The purpose of a Walker hearing is to protect "the defendant's constitutional [due-process] right at some stage in the proceedings to object to the use of the confession and to have a fair hearing and a reliable determination on the issue of voluntariness, a determination uninfluenced by the truth or falsity of the confession." Jackson v. Denno , 378 U.S. 368 , 376-377, 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964) (citation omitted). 3 This right remains protected at trial if the jury is limited to considering the "weight and credibility" of the statement, i.e., if defendant is free to argue, and the | 2 | 4 |
People v. Boydgreen2 sentences1974See People v Yacks, 38 Mich App 437 ; 196 NW2d 827 (1972); People v Boyd, 49 Mich App 388 ; 212 NW2d 333 (1973). 1974See People v Yacks, 38 Mich App 437 ; 196 NW2d 827 (1972); People v Boyd, 49 Mich App 388 ; 212 NW2d 333 (1973). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Fonvillegreen2 sentences2017See Fonville, 291 Mich App at 384 . 2017See Fonville, 291 Mich App at 384 . | 2 | 2 |
Lego v. Twomeygreen2 sentences1987Lego v Twomey, 404 US 477, 485-486 ; 92 S Ct 619, 625 ; 30 L Ed 2d 618, 625 (1971). 1987Lego v Twomey, 404 US 477, 485-486 ; 92 S Ct 619, 625 ; 30 L Ed 2d 618, 625 (1971). | 2 | 2 |
| Davis v. North Carolinagreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Brittgreen | 2 | 2 |
People v. McCradygreen2 sentences2024See People v McCrady, 244 Mich App 27, 29 ; 624 NW2d 761 (2000). 2024See People v McCrady, 244 Mich App 27, 29 ; 624 NW2d 761 (2000). | 1 | 5 |
People v. Crawfordgreen2 sentences1982This Court set forth the proper standard of review of a trial court’s determination of voluntariness *514 after a Walker 1 hearing in People v Crawford, 89 Mich App 30, 32-33; 279 NW2d 560 (1979): "A Walker hearing is designed to determine the voluntariness of a defendant’s statement. 1982This Court set forth the proper standard of review of a trial court’s determination of voluntariness *514 after a Walker 1 hearing in People v Crawford, 89 Mich App 30, 32-33; 279 NW2d 560 (1979): "A Walker hearing is designed to determine the voluntariness of a defendant’s statement. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Whiteheadgreen2 sentences2024See People v Henry (After Remand), 305 Mich App 127, 144 ; 854 NW2d 114 (2014) (the defendant preserved his challenge to the admissibility of his confession by filing a motion to suppress the confession); People v Whitehead, 238 Mich App 1 , 7 n 5; 604 NW2d 737 (1999) (a defendant preserves for appeal a challenge to the voluntariness of a confession by requesting a Walker hearing). 2024See People v Henry (After Remand), 305 Mich App 127, 144 ; 854 NW2d 114 (2014) (the defendant preserved his challenge to the admissibility of his confession by filing a motion to suppress the confession); People v Whitehead, 238 Mich App 1 , 7 n 5; 604 NW2d 737 (1999) (a defendant preserves for appeal a challenge to the voluntariness of a confession by requesting a Walker hearing). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Littlejohngreen2 sentences2024Accordingly, “[d]enial of a pretrial motion for a Walker hearing constitutes error.” People v Littlejohn, 197 Mich App 220, 222 ; 495 NW2d 171 (1992). 2024Accordingly, “[d]enial of a pretrial motion for a Walker hearing constitutes error.” People v Littlejohn, 197 Mich App 220, 222 ; 495 NW2d 171 (1992). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Whiteheadgreen2 sentences2024See People v Henry (After Remand), 305 Mich App 127, 144 ; 854 NW2d 114 (2014) (the defendant preserved his challenge to the admissibility of his confession by filing a motion to suppress the confession); People v Whitehead, 238 Mich App 1 , 7 n 5; 604 NW2d 737 (1999) (a defendant preserves for appeal a challenge to the voluntariness of a confession by requesting a Walker hearing). 2024See People v Henry (After Remand), 305 Mich App 127, 144 ; 854 NW2d 114 (2014) (the defendant preserved his challenge to the admissibility of his confession by filing a motion to suppress the confession); People v Whitehead, 238 Mich App 1 , 7 n 5; 604 NW2d 737 (1999) (a defendant preserves for appeal a challenge to the voluntariness of a confession by requesting a Walker hearing). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Nealgreen2 sentences2020See People v Neal, 182 Mich App 368, 371-372 ; 451 NW2d 639 (1990). 2020See People v Neal, 182 Mich App 368, 371-372 ; 451 NW2d 639 (1990). | 1 | 2 |
| Lee v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Danielsgreen | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Henrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Coopergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Goodingreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Fikegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bobogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Raygreen | 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. Hummel
green
2 sentences1988Upon an independent examination of the record, we do not find that the court’s determination at the Walker hearing was clearly erroneous, People v Hummel, 19 Mich App 266, 270 ; 172 NW2d 550 (1969). 1988Upon an independent examination of the record, we do not find that the court’s determination at the Walker hearing was clearly erroneous, People v Hummel, 19 Mich App 266, 270 ; 172 NW2d 550 (1969). | 13 | 1970–1988 |
People v. Daoud
green
2 sentences2024Noting that our review of a lower court’s factual findings is limited to clear error, People v Daoud, 462 Mich 621, 629-630 ; 614 NW2d (2000), I do not believe that the trial court was clearly erroneous when it held that defendant did not unequivocally invoke her right to counsel or, alternatively, that defendant reinitiated the interview after review of both the police interview and the testimony at the Walker hearing.1 Therefore, I would affirm the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to suppress. 2020People v Daoud, 462 Mich 621, 629 ; 614 NW2d 152 (2000). | 5 | 2004–2024 |
People v. Kelly
neutral
2 sentences1972The law in Michigan is well settled that the findings and rulings of the trial judge at a Walker hearing will not be disturbed on appeal absent a plain showing "that they were clearly erroneous”. *177 GCR 1963, 517.1; People v Walker, 6 Mich App 600 (1967); People v Lauderdale, 17 Mich App 191 (1969); People v Lasley, 21 Mich App 340 (1970); People v William Turner, 26 Mich App 632 (1970); People v Kelly, 30 Mich App 154 (1971). 1972The law in Michigan is well settled that the findings and rulings of the trial judge at a Walker hearing will not be disturbed on appeal absent a plain showing "that they were clearly erroneous”. *177 GCR 1963, 517.1; People v Walker, 6 Mich App 600 (1967); People v Lauderdale, 17 Mich App 191 (1969); People v Lasley, 21 Mich App 340 (1970); People v William Turner, 26 Mich App 632 (1970); People v Kelly, 30 Mich App 154 (1971). | 5 | 1971–1977 |
People v. Whisenant
green
2 sentences1970This case is strikingly similar to the Whisenant case in that although defendant was informed of his right to counsel, “. . . nowhere does it appear (in the record) that he was informed of his right to have counsel, retained and appointed present during questioning and the giving of his statement.” People v. Whisenant (supra, p 437 ). 2 We feel constrained to remand for a Walker hearing on the question of whether there was a voluntary waiver of right to counsel after being fully informed of his right to have such counsel present at questioning in line with Miranda v. Arizona, supra, and the de 1970This case is strikingly similar to the Whisenant case in that although defendant was informed of his right to counsel, “. . . nowhere does it appear (in the record) that he was informed of his right to have counsel, retained and appointed present during questioning and the giving of his statement.” People v. Whisenant (supra, p 437 ). 2 We feel constrained to remand for a Walker hearing on the question of whether there was a voluntary waiver of right to counsel after being fully informed of his right to have such counsel present at questioning in line with Miranda v. Arizona, supra, and the de | 5 | 1968–1970 |
People v. Ray
green
2 sentences2016However, the trial court is required to hold a Walker hearing sua sponte only in “cases in which the evidence clearly and substantially reflects a question about the voluntary nature of a confession or implicates other due process concerns.” Id. at 271 . 2016However, the trial court is required to hold a Walker hearing sua sponte only in “cases in which the evidence clearly and substantially reflects a question about the voluntary nature of a confession or implicates other due process concerns.” Id. at 271 . | 3 | 2015–2019 |
People v. Gilbert
green
2 sentences2017And in People v. Gilbert , 55 Mich.App. 168 , 172, 222 N.W.2d 305 (1974), this Court noted that a trial court's ruling that a defendant's statement was admissible "merely placed the confession on an equal footing with all other properly admitted evidence," leaving the defendant "as free as he was before the Walker hearing to familiarize the jury with the circumstances that attended the taking of his confession, including facts bearing on voluntariness, to impeach its credibility or to challenge the fact that it was ever given at all." Further, this Court in Gilbert stated: After such evidence 2017And in People v. Gilbert , 55 Mich.App. 168 , 172, 222 N.W.2d 305 (1974), this Court noted that a trial court's ruling that a defendant's statement was admissible "merely placed the confession on an equal footing with all other properly admitted evidence," leaving the defendant "as free as he was before the Walker hearing to familiarize the jury with the circumstances that attended the taking of his confession, including facts bearing on voluntariness, to impeach its credibility or to challenge the fact that it was ever given at all." Further, this Court in Gilbert stated: After such evidence | 3 | 1974–2017 |
People v. Kyllonen
green
2 sentences1977While this Court reviews the entire record to determine whether the judge’s ruling at the Walker hearing was correct, People v Kyllonen, 66 Mich App 467 ; 239 NW2d 410 (1976), we do not upset the lower court’s ruling unless it is "clearly erroneous”. 1977While this Court reviews the entire record to determine whether the judge’s ruling at the Walker hearing was correct, People v Kyllonen, 66 Mich App 467 ; 239 NW2d 410 (1976), we do not upset the lower court’s ruling unless it is "clearly erroneous”. | 3 | 1977–1980 |
People v. Werner
neutral
2 sentences1974People v Hummel, 19 Mich App 266 ; 172 NW2d 550 (1969); People v Werner, 26 Mich App 109 ; 182 NW2d 13 (1970); People v Patterson, 39 Mich App 467 ; 198 NW2d 175 (1972). 1974People v Hummel, 19 Mich App 266 ; 172 NW2d 550 (1969); People v Werner, 26 Mich App 109 ; 182 NW2d 13 (1970); People v Patterson, 39 Mich App 467 ; 198 NW2d 175 (1972). | 3 | 1971–1974 |
People v. Walker
green
2 sentences1972The law in Michigan is well settled that the findings and rulings of the trial judge at a Walker hearing will not be disturbed on appeal absent a plain showing "that they were clearly erroneous”. *177 GCR 1963, 517.1; People v Walker, 6 Mich App 600 (1967); People v Lauderdale, 17 Mich App 191 (1969); People v Lasley, 21 Mich App 340 (1970); People v William Turner, 26 Mich App 632 (1970); People v Kelly, 30 Mich App 154 (1971). 1972The law in Michigan is well settled that the findings and rulings of the trial judge at a Walker hearing will not be disturbed on appeal absent a plain showing "that they were clearly erroneous”. *177 GCR 1963, 517.1; People v Walker, 6 Mich App 600 (1967); People v Lauderdale, 17 Mich App 191 (1969); People v Lasley, 21 Mich App 340 (1970); People v William Turner, 26 Mich App 632 (1970); People v Kelly, 30 Mich App 154 (1971). | 3 | 1969–1972 |
People v. Smart
green
2 sentences2018People v Smart, 304 Mich App 244, 247 ; 850 NW2d 579 1 At trial, evidence of a second confession by defendant, this time to a fellow inmate with whom defendant had a prior relationship, was also presented. 2018People v Smart, 304 Mich App 244, 247 ; 850 NW2d 579 1 At trial, evidence of a second confession by defendant, this time to a fellow inmate with whom defendant had a prior relationship, was also presented. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Frazier
green
2 sentences2018This Court has found that “a confession is involuntary if obtained by any sort of threat or violence, by any promises, express or implied, or by the exertion of any improper influence.” People v Frazier, 270 Mich App 172, 182 ; 715 NW2d 341 (2006) (quotations marks and citation omitted). 2018This Court has found that “a confession is involuntary if obtained by any sort of threat or violence, by any promises, express or implied, or by the exertion of any improper influence.” People v Frazier, 270 Mich App 172, 182 ; 715 NW2d 341 (2006) (quotations marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Tanner
green
2 sentences2018Tanner, 496 Mich at 206 . 2018Tanner, 496 Mich at 206 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Snider
green
2 sentences2016People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 425 ; 608 NW2d 502 (2001), our Supreme Court, addressing the basic principles governing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, stated: To justify reversal under either the federal or state constitutions, a convicted defendant must satisfy the two-part test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984). 2016People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 425 ; 608 NW2d 502 (2001), our Supreme Court, addressing the basic principles governing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, stated: To justify reversal under either the federal or state constitutions, a convicted defendant must satisfy the two-part test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984). | 2 | 2002–2016 |
People v. Manning
green
2 sentences2015People v Manning, 243 Mich App 615, 624-625 ; 624 NW2d 746 (2000). 2015People v Manning, 243 Mich App 615, 624-625 ; 624 NW2d 746 (2000). | 2 | 2014–2015 |
People v. Hooks
green
2 sentences1988In People v Hooks, 112 Mich App 477, 480 ; 316 NW2d 245 (1982), lv den 413 Mich 902 (1982), citing United States v Powe, 192 US App DC 224; 591 F2d 833 (1978), this Court set forth the rule regarding when a trial judge, sua sponte, must test the voluntariness of a confession: In Powe, the defendant was convicted by a jury of distributing a controlled substance. 1988In People v Hooks, 112 Mich App 477, 480 ; 316 NW2d 245 (1982), lv den 413 Mich 902 (1982), citing United States v Powe, 192 US App DC 224; 591 F2d 833 (1978), this Court set forth the rule regarding when a trial judge, sua sponte, must test the voluntariness of a confession: In Powe, the defendant was convicted by a jury of distributing a controlled substance. | 2 | 1988–1988 |
| People v. Catey green | 2 | 1986–1987 |
| People v. Szczytko green | 2 | 1977–1977 |
| People v. Reed green | 2 | 1977–1977 |
| People v. Williams green | 2 | 1974–1977 |
| People v. Szczytko green | 2 | 1977–1977 |
| Boruski v. General Accounting Office green | 2 | 1977–1977 |
| 106 Forsyth Corp. v. Bishop green | 2 | 1977–1977 |
| People v. Bradley green | 2 | 1975–1976 |
| People v. Hamilton green | 2 | 1970–1972 |
| People v. Pallister green | 2 | 1970–1972 |
| BJ'S & SONS CONST. CO., INC. v. Van Sickle green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Pipes green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Soltis green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Arizona v. Roberson green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Gentner, Inc. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Gentner, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Daniel green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Trakhtenberg green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Berghuis v. Thompkins green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. DeLisle green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Slocum green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Kimble green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Simmons green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Geno green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Burrell green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.