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.
30 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2026The following factors should be considered when determining the voluntariness of a statement: 9 must be given a series of warnings before being subjected to “custodial interrogation” in order to protect his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. 13 “The right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation is, in the words of the United States Supreme Court, a corollary of the right against compelled self-incrimination, because the presence of counsel at this stage affords a way to ‘insure that statements made in the government- established atmosphere are not the product o 2024“A finding is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” Stewart, 512 Mich at 480. “[T]he accused must be given a series of warnings before being subjected to ‘custodial interrogation’ in order to protect his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.” People v Tanner, 496 Mich 199, 207 ; 853 NW2d 653 (2014), citing Miranda, 384 US at 444-445, 477-479 . | 8 | 20 |
People v. Elliottgreen2 sentences2023In this case, there was evidence that defendant tracked Reifert’s location, followed her to Applebee’s, went home and changed shoes, tracked that Reifert and Wood were back at Reifert’s apartment, retrieved his gun and ammunition from inside the house, and drove to Reifert’s apartment before shooting Wood in the chest and head. 5 There was evidence that defendant kicked in the door to Reifert’s apartment and entered without her permission while she was present inside. -7- compelled self-incrimination requires that the accused be given a series of warnings before being subjected to ‘custodial i 2023In this case, there was evidence that defendant tracked Reifert’s location, followed her to Applebee’s, went home and changed shoes, tracked that Reifert and Wood were back at Reifert’s apartment, retrieved his gun and ammunition from inside the house, and drove to Reifert’s apartment before shooting Wood in the chest and head. 5 There was evidence that defendant kicked in the door to Reifert’s apartment and entered without her permission while she was present inside. -7- compelled self-incrimination requires that the accused be given a series of warnings before being subjected to ‘custodial i | 6 | 15 |
People v. Daoudgreen2 sentences2018The now-familiar Miranda warnings require the police, before a custodial interrogation, to inform a suspect (1) that he has the right to remain silent, (2) that anything he says can and will be used against him in court, (3) that he has a right to the presence of an attorney during any questioning, and (4) that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him. [People v Daoud, 462 Mich 621 , 625 n 1; 614 NW2d 152, 154 (2000).] 10 In the trial court, there was debate about whether Butler was “in custody” on December 16 so as to require Miranda warnings. 2018The now-familiar Miranda warnings require the police, before a custodial interrogation, to inform a suspect (1) that he has the right to remain silent, (2) that anything he says can and will be used against him in court, (3) that he has a right to the presence of an attorney during any questioning, and (4) that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him. [People v Daoud, 462 Mich 621 , 625 n 1; 614 NW2d 152, 154 (2000).] 10 In the trial court, there was debate about whether Butler was “in custody” on December 16 so as to require Miranda warnings. | 2 | 2 |
People of Michigan v. Joshua Lamar-James Stewartgreen1 sentence2024“A finding is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” Stewart, 512 Mich at 480. “[T]he accused must be given a series of warnings before being subjected to ‘custodial interrogation’ in order to protect his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.” People v Tanner, 496 Mich 199, 207 ; 853 NW2d 653 (2014), citing Miranda, 384 US at 444-445, 477-479 . | 1 | 1 |
Rhode Island v. Innisgreen1 sentence2019But “not . . . all statements obtained by the police after a person has been taken into custody are to be considered the product of interrogation.” Rhode Island v Innis, 446 US 291, 299 (1980). | 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. Tanner
green
2 sentences2024“A finding is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” Stewart, 512 Mich at 480. “[T]he accused must be given a series of warnings before being subjected to ‘custodial interrogation’ in order to protect his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.” People v Tanner, 496 Mich 199, 207 ; 853 NW2d 653 (2014), citing Miranda, 384 US at 444-445, 477-479 . 2024“A finding is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” Stewart, 512 Mich at 480. “[T]he accused must be given a series of warnings before being subjected to ‘custodial interrogation’ in order to protect his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.” People v Tanner, 496 Mich 199, 207 ; 853 NW2d 653 (2014), citing Miranda, 384 US at 444-445, 477-479 . | 8 | 2017–2026 |
Edwards v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2022The Court in Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), clarified that: “[b]y custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” One of the warnings announced in Miranda was related to “an accused’s [] Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation.” Edwards v Arizona, 451 US 477, 482 ; 101 S Ct 1880 ; 68 L Ed 2d 378 (1981). 2022The Court in Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), clarified that: “[b]y custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” One of the warnings announced in Miranda was related to “an accused’s [] Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation.” Edwards v Arizona, 451 US 477, 482 ; 101 S Ct 1880 ; 68 L Ed 2d 378 (1981). | 2 | 2013–2022 |
People v. Hill
green
2 sentences2017If the custodial interrogation is not preceded by an adequate warning, statements made during the custodial interrogation may not be introduced into evidence at the accused’s criminal trial. [Elliott, 494 Mich at 301 (quotation marks, citations, and footnote omitted).] -5- “[T]he fact that an individual has become the ‘focus’ of an investigation does not trigger the Miranda requirement.” People v Hill, 429 Mich 382, 391 ; 415 NW2d 193 (1987). 2017If the custodial interrogation is not preceded by an adequate warning, statements made during the custodial interrogation may not be introduced into evidence at the accused’s criminal trial. [Elliott, 494 Mich at 301 (quotation marks, citations, and footnote omitted).] -5- “[T]he fact that an individual has become the ‘focus’ of an investigation does not trigger the Miranda requirement.” People v Hill, 429 Mich 382, 391 ; 415 NW2d 193 (1987). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Duckworth v. Eagan
green
2 sentences2026“Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.” Id. at 444 . 14 Tanner, 496 Mich at 207 , quoting Miranda, 384 US at 466 . 15 Duckworth v Eagan, 492 US 195, 204 ; 109 S Ct 2875 ; 106 L Ed 2d 166 (1989). 10 can be used against him.” 16 “[T]he term ‘interrogation’ under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normall 2026“Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.” Id. at 444 . 14 Tanner, 496 Mich at 207 , quoting Miranda, 384 US at 466 . 15 Duckworth v Eagan, 492 US 195, 204 ; 109 S Ct 2875 ; 106 L Ed 2d 166 (1989). 10 can be used against him.” 16 “[T]he term ‘interrogation’ under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normall | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2021In Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against compelled self-incrimination requires that the accused be given a series of warnings before being subject to “custodial interrogation.” “Custodial interrogation means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody.” People v Anderson, 209 Mich App 527, 532 ; 531 NW2d 780 (1995), citing Illinois v Perkins, 496 US 292, 296 ; 110 S Ct 2394 ; 110 L Ed 2d 243 (1990). 2021In Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against compelled self-incrimination requires that the accused be given a series of warnings before being subject to “custodial interrogation.” “Custodial interrogation means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody.” People v Anderson, 209 Mich App 527, 532 ; 531 NW2d 780 (1995), citing Illinois v Perkins, 496 US 292, 296 ; 110 S Ct 2394 ; 110 L Ed 2d 243 (1990). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Illinois v. Perkins
green
2 sentences2021In Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against compelled self-incrimination requires that the accused be given a series of warnings before being subject to “custodial interrogation.” “Custodial interrogation means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody.” People v Anderson, 209 Mich App 527, 532 ; 531 NW2d 780 (1995), citing Illinois v Perkins, 496 US 292, 296 ; 110 S Ct 2394 ; 110 L Ed 2d 243 (1990). 2021In Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against compelled self-incrimination requires that the accused be given a series of warnings before being subject to “custodial interrogation.” “Custodial interrogation means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody.” People v Anderson, 209 Mich App 527, 532 ; 531 NW2d 780 (1995), citing Illinois v Perkins, 496 US 292, 296 ; 110 S Ct 2394 ; 110 L Ed 2d 243 (1990). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Sterling
green
1 sentence2016The Court in People v Stevens, 498 Mich 162, 164-165 ; 869 NW2d 233 (2015), explained that a “judge’s conduct pierces this veil . . . when, considering the totality of the circumstances, it is reasonably likely that the judge’s conduct improperly influenced the jury by creating the appearance of advocacy or partiality against a party.” We must weigh a series of factors to answer this question, including, but not limited to, the nature of the trial judge’s conduct, the tone and demeanor of the judge, the scope of the judicial conduct in the context of the length and complexity of the trial and | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Stevens
green
2 sentences2016The Court in People v Stevens, 498 Mich 162, 164-165 ; 869 NW2d 233 (2015), explained that a “judge’s conduct pierces this veil . . . when, considering the totality of the circumstances, it is reasonably likely that the judge’s conduct improperly influenced the jury by creating the appearance of advocacy or partiality against a party.” We must weigh a series of factors to answer this question, including, but not limited to, the nature of the trial judge’s conduct, the tone and demeanor of the judge, the scope of the judicial conduct in the context of the length and complexity of the trial and 2016The Court in People v Stevens, 498 Mich 162, 164-165 ; 869 NW2d 233 (2015), explained that a “judge’s conduct pierces this veil . . . when, considering the totality of the circumstances, it is reasonably likely that the judge’s conduct improperly influenced the jury by creating the appearance of advocacy or partiality against a party.” We must weigh a series of factors to answer this question, including, but not limited to, the nature of the trial judge’s conduct, the tone and demeanor of the judge, the scope of the judicial conduct in the context of the length and complexity of the trial and | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bahri v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance
green
2 sentences2016Defendant produced plaintiff’s records from her daycare employer, which described a series of warnings for the failure to adhere to company policy that ultimately led to 5 This Court’s decision in Bahri v IDS Prop Cas Ins Co, 308 Mich App 420 ; 864 NW2d 609 (2014), also is instructive. 2016Defendant produced plaintiff’s records from her daycare employer, which described a series of warnings for the failure to adhere to company policy that ultimately led to 5 This Court’s decision in Bahri v IDS Prop Cas Ins Co, 308 Mich App 420 ; 864 NW2d 609 (2014), also is instructive. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Brown v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2014Prior to 1966, a suspect’s confession was constitutionally admissible if a court determined that it was made “voluntarily.”2 Despite the apparent textual emphasis on the voluntariness of a suspect’s confession (“no person shall be compelled”), the United States Supreme Court held in Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444-445, 477-479 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), that the accused must be given a series of warnings before being subjected to “custodial interrogation” in order to protect his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.3 The right to have counsel present during custo 2014Prior to 1966, a suspect’s confession was constitutionally admissible if a court determined that it was made “voluntarily.”2 Despite the apparent textual emphasis on the voluntariness of a suspect’s confession (“no person shall be compelled”), the United States Supreme Court held in Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444-445, 477-479 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), that the accused must be given a series of warnings before being subjected to “custodial interrogation” in order to protect his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.3 The right to have counsel present during custo | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ashcraft v. Tennessee
green
2 sentences2014Prior to 1966, a suspect’s confession was constitutionally admissible if a court determined that it was made “voluntarily.”2 Despite the apparent textual emphasis on the voluntariness of a suspect’s confession (“no person shall be compelled”), the United States Supreme Court held in Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444-445, 477-479 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), that the accused must be given a series of warnings before being subjected to “custodial interrogation” in order to protect his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.3 The right to have counsel present during custo 2014Prior to 1966, a suspect’s confession was constitutionally admissible if a court determined that it was made “voluntarily.”2 Despite the apparent textual emphasis on the voluntariness of a suspect’s confession (“no person shall be compelled”), the United States Supreme Court held in Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444-445, 477-479 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), that the accused must be given a series of warnings before being subjected to “custodial interrogation” in order to protect his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.3 The right to have counsel present during custo | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Chambers v. Florida
green
2 sentences2014Prior to 1966, a suspect’s confession was constitutionally admissible if a court determined that it was made “voluntarily.”2 Despite the apparent textual emphasis on the voluntariness of a suspect’s confession (“no person shall be compelled”), the United States Supreme Court held in Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444-445, 477-479 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), that the accused must be given a series of warnings before being subjected to “custodial interrogation” in order to protect his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.3 The right to have counsel present during custo 2014Prior to 1966, a suspect’s confession was constitutionally admissible if a court determined that it was made “voluntarily.”2 Despite the apparent textual emphasis on the voluntariness of a suspect’s confession (“no person shall be compelled”), the United States Supreme Court held in Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444-445, 477-479 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), that the accused must be given a series of warnings before being subjected to “custodial interrogation” in order to protect his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.3 The right to have counsel present during custo | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Elliott
green
1 sentence2013The right to S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), before questioning an in-custody parolee who, during police questioning, has previously invoked his right to counsel under Edwards v Arizona, 451 US 477 ; 101 S Ct 1880 ; 68 L Ed 2d 378 (1981), about an offense giving rise to an alleged parole violation, if the parole officer’s testimony concerning the parolee’s responses to such questioning is to be admissible at the trial for that offense. [Elliott, 491 Mich 938 .] 4 The United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution both prohibit “compelled” self-incrimination. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Nemeth v. Abonmarche Development, Inc
green
2 sentences2006Id. 2006Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.