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.
169 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2026 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2015Subsequently, however, in State v. Brown, 514 So.2d 99 (La.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 1754 , 100 L.Ed.2d 216 (1988), the supreme court articulated that a co-defendant’s blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege was appropriate. 2015Subsequently, however, in State v. Brown, 514 So.2d 99 (La.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 1754 , 100 L.Ed.2d 216 (1988), the supreme court articulated that a co-defendant’s blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege was appropriate. | 6 | 11 |
State v. Colemangreen2 sentences2015We note the following cases where a harmless error analysis was applied to affirm the trial court’s allowance of the Fifth Amendment privilege: See State v. Coleman, 406 So.2d 563 (La.1981) (finding no indication | ^that the witness’s testimony would have helped the defendant’s case); State v. Johnson, 404 So.2d 239 (La.1981), cert. denied sub nom. 2015We note the following cases where a harmless error analysis was applied to affirm the trial court’s allowance of the Fifth Amendment privilege: See State v. Coleman, 406 So.2d 563 (La.1981) (finding no indication | ^that the witness’s testimony would have helped the defendant’s case); State v. Johnson, 404 So.2d 239 (La.1981), cert. denied sub nom. | 6 | 9 |
State v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences1992The privilege against self-incrimination is embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in Article I, Sect. 16, of the Louisiana Constitution (1974), which provides that “No person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself.” A witness may invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination only in response to questions “where the defendant has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer.” State v. Edwards, 419 So.2d 881 (La.1982); State v. Brown, 514 So.2d 99 (La.1987), cert. den., 486 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 1754 , 100 L.Ed.2d 216 (1 1992The privilege against self-incrimination is embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in Article I, Sect. 16, of the Louisiana Constitution (1974), which provides that “No person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself.” A witness may invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination only in response to questions “where the defendant has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer.” State v. Edwards, 419 So.2d 881 (La.1982); State v. Brown, 514 So.2d 99 (La.1987), cert. den., 486 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 1754 , 100 L.Ed.2d 216 (1 | 4 | 8 |
State v. Darbygreen2 sentences2007Privilege Against Self-Incrimination The defendant contends that the “trial court denied [him] due process of law and the right to present witnesses in his defense when it permitted Steven James Reinholdt to enter a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” In State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44, 48 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152 , 102 S.Ct. 1022 , 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982), the supreme court held that “[i]t is reversible error to allow a witness to claim a blanket privilege [against self-incrimination].” However, the supreme court concluded that given the facts and circumsta 2007Privilege Against Self-Incrimination The defendant contends that the "trial court denied [him] due process of law and the right to present witnesses in his defense when it permitted Steven James Reinholdt to enter a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." In State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44, 48 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152 , 102 S.Ct. 1022 , 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982), the supreme court held that "[i]t is reversible error to allow a witness to claim a blanket privilege [against self-incrimination]." However, the supreme court concluded that given the facts and circumsta | 4 | 5 |
Colorado v. Springgreen2 sentences2013Cf. Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 573-575 , 107 S.Ct. 851 , 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987) (Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination waived when defendant received standard Miranda warnings regarding the nature of the right but not told the specific interrogation questions to be asked). 2013Cf. Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 573-575 , 107 S.Ct. 851 , 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987) (Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination waived when defendant received standard Miranda warnings regarding the nature of the right but not told the specific interrogation questions to be asked). | 3 | 5 |
| Jenkins v. Andersongreen | 3 | 3 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2025In particular, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . .” The United States Supreme Court held in Miranda “that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect 8 persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” 384 U.S. at 467, 86 S.Ct. at 1624. 2025In particular, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . .” The United States Supreme Court held in Miranda “that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect 8 persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” 384 U.S. at 467, 86 S.Ct. at 1624. | 2 | 17 |
State v. Berrygreen2 sentences1996In addressing the issue of whether it is permissible to allow a witness to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in the presence of the jury, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Berry, 324 So.2d 822, 830 (La.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 954 , 96 S.Ct. 1731 , 48 L.Ed.2d 198 (1976), stated: It is improper conduct for either the prosecution or the defense knowingly to call a witness who will claim a privilege, for the purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim of privilege. 1990Const. of 1974, Article I, Section 16, states that "No person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself." In addressing the issue of whether it is permissible to allow a witness to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in the presence of the jury, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Berry, 324 So.2d 822 (La.1975), cert. denied, Berry v. Louisiana, 425 U.S. 954 , 96 S.Ct. 1731 , 48 L.Ed.2d 198 (1976), stated: It is improper conduct for either the prosecution or the defense knowingly to call a witness who will claim a privilege, for the purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact | 2 | 4 |
State v. Bakergreen2 sentences1978This Court stated that "such an allegation does not, of itself, warrant severance since the co-defendants can plead the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the separate trials." See also, State v. Hunter, 340 So.2d 226 (La. 1976); State v. Baker, 288 So.2d 52 (La. 1973). 1978This Court stated that "such an allegation does not, of itself, warrant severance since the co-defendants can plead the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the separate trials." See also, State v. Hunter, 340 So.2d 226 (La. 1976); State v. Baker, 288 So.2d 52 (La. 1973). | 2 | 4 |
| State v. Bolengreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Carthangreen | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Calandragreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2026The Miranda holding “protects an individual’s Fifth Amendment privilege during incommunicado interrogation in a police-controlled atmosphere.” State v. Taylor, 2001-1638 p. 6 (La.1/14/03), 838 So.2d 729, 739 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1103 , 124 S.Ct. 1036 , 157 L.Ed.2d 886 (2004). 2026The Miranda holding “protects an individual’s Fifth Amendment privilege during incommunicado interrogation in a police-controlled atmosphere.” State v. Taylor, 2001-1638 p. 6 (La.1/14/03), 838 So.2d 729, 739 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1103 , 124 S.Ct. 1036 , 157 L.Ed.2d 886 (2004). | 1 | 6 |
State v. Mayeuxgreen2 sentences2021Id. at 705 . 2020See State v, Mayeux, 498 So. 2d 701, 705 ( La. 1986) ( finding the Fifth Amendment does not bar retrial when a jury's verdict, containing a nonwaivable defect, must be set aside by an appellate court); see also State v. Davenport, 13- 1859 ( La. 5/ 7/ 14), 147 So. 3d 137, 150 ( finding an illegal verdict constitutes neither an acquittal nor a conviction). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences1981Any prejudice to defendant by not requiring the witness to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege question by question, see State v. Wilson, 394 So.2d 254 (La. 1981), is minimal in light of the fact that defendant succeeded in putting into evidence an earlier statement by this witness which exculpated defendant. 1981Any prejudice to defendant by not requiring the witness to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege question by question, see State v. Wilson, 394 So.2d 254 (La. 1981), is minimal in light of the fact that defendant succeeded in putting into evidence an earlier statement by this witness which exculpated defendant. | 1 | 5 |
United States v. Wadegreen2 sentences1970In Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967), the Supreme Court of the United States said: “ * * * The taking of the exemplars did not violate petitioner’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. * * A mere handwriting exemplar, in contrast to the content of what is written, like the voice or body itself, is an identifying physical characteristic outside its protection. * * * ” The court in Gilbert cited and relied upon Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), and United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.C 1970In Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967), the Supreme Court of the United States said: “ * * * The taking of the exemplars did not violate petitioner’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. * * A mere handwriting exemplar, in contrast to the content of what is written, like the voice or body itself, is an identifying physical characteristic outside its protection. * * * ” The court in Gilbert cited and relied upon Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), and United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.C | 1 | 5 |
| State v. Dotchgreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Hoffman v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Brightgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Simmons v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Weiner v. Dayton Bar Ass'ngreen | 1 | 2 |
| Nelson v. Californiagreen | 1 | 2 |
| Johnson v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Cooks v. Rapides Parish Indigent Defender Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences1981Any prejudice to defendant by not requiring the witness to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege question by question, see State v. Wilson, 394 So.2d 254 (La. 1981), is minimal in light of the fact that defendant succeeded in putting into evidence an earlier statement by this witness which exculpated defendant. 1981Any prejudice to defendant by not requiring the witness to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege question by question, see State v. Wilson, 394 So.2d 254 (La. 1981), is minimal in light of the fact that defendant succeeded in putting into evidence an earlier statement by this witness which exculpated defendant. | 2 | 5 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences1986From Badon : "In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the Supreme Court held that `... the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory and inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.' In Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 761 , 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1830 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), decided the same term, the court then emphasized that the Fifth Amendment privilege, and the coextensive Miranda safeguar 1986From Badon : "In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the Supreme Court held that `... the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory and inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.' In Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 761 , 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1830 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), decided the same term, the court then emphasized that the Fifth Amendment privilege, and the coextensive Miranda safeguar | 13 | 1968–2010 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences2018It is also correct that "[a]dmissions of identity at a multiple offender hearing implicate the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." State v. Harris, 95-900, p. 1 (La. 5/19/95), 654 So.2d 680 , 680. 2018It is also correct that "[a]dmissions of identity at a multiple offender hearing implicate the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." State v. Harris, 95-900, p. 1 (La. 5/19/95), 654 So.2d 680 , 680. | 8 | 1996–2018 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2010State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983). 2010State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983). | 8 | 1995–2010 |
Louisiana v. Haddad
green
2 sentences2015In P.T., 970 So.2d at 1259 , this court quoted State v. Haddad, 99-1272, p. 5 (La.2/29/00), 767 So.2d 682, 686 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1070 , 121 S.Ct. 757 , 148 L.Ed.2d 660 (2001), holding that “[a]s a general proposition, when faced with resolving the tension between a witness’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, this court has consistently recognized the witness’s right not to incriminate himself.” Accordingly, we find that this assignment of error lacks merit. 2015In P.T., 970 So.2d at 1259 , this court quoted State v. Haddad, 99-1272, p. 5 (La.2/29/00), 767 So.2d 682, 686 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1070 , 121 S.Ct. 757 , 148 L.Ed.2d 660 (2001), holding that “[a]s a general proposition, when faced with resolving the tension between a witness’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, this court has consistently recognized the witness’s right not to incriminate himself.” Accordingly, we find that this assignment of error lacks merit. | 5 | 2007–2015 |
State v. Haddad
green
2 sentences2015In P.T., 970 So.2d at 1259 , this court quoted State v. Haddad, 99-1272, p. 5 (La.2/29/00), 767 So.2d 682, 686 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1070 , 121 S.Ct. 757 , 148 L.Ed.2d 660 (2001), holding that “[a]s a general proposition, when faced with resolving the tension between a witness’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, this court has consistently recognized the witness’s right not to incriminate himself.” Accordingly, we find that this assignment of error lacks merit. 2015In P.T., 970 So.2d at 1259 , this court quoted State v. Haddad, 99-1272, p. 5 (La.2/29/00), 767 So.2d 682, 686 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1070 , 121 S.Ct. 757 , 148 L.Ed.2d 660 (2001), holding that “[a]s a general proposition, when faced with resolving the tension between a witness’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, this court has consistently recognized the witness’s right not to incriminate himself.” Accordingly, we find that this assignment of error lacks merit. | 5 | 2007–2015 |
Patterson v. United States
green
2 sentences2015In P.T., 970 So.2d at 1259 , this court quoted State v. Haddad, 99-1272, p. 5 (La.2/29/00), 767 So.2d 682, 686 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1070 , 121 S.Ct. 757 , 148 L.Ed.2d 660 (2001), holding that “[a]s a general proposition, when faced with resolving the tension between a witness’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, this court has consistently recognized the witness’s right not to incriminate himself.” Accordingly, we find that this assignment of error lacks merit. 2015In P.T., 970 So.2d at 1259 , this court quoted State v. Haddad, 99-1272, p. 5 (La.2/29/00), 767 So.2d 682, 686 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1070 , 121 S.Ct. 757 , 148 L.Ed.2d 660 (2001), holding that “[a]s a general proposition, when faced with resolving the tension between a witness’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, this court has consistently recognized the witness’s right not to incriminate himself.” Accordingly, we find that this assignment of error lacks merit. | 5 | 2007–2015 |
State v. Martin
green
2 sentences2018However, in Harris , the supreme court also explained that: Nevertheless, multiple offender proceedings "simply should not be equated (at least for purposes of determining the validity of an admission) to trials of guilt or innocence." State v. Martin, 427 So.2d 1182 , 1185 (La.1983). 2018However, in Harris , the supreme court also explained that: Nevertheless, multiple offender proceedings "simply should not be equated (at least for purposes of determining the validity of an admission) to trials of guilt or innocence." State v. Martin, 427 So.2d 1182 , 1185 (La.1983). | 4 | 2018–2018 |
Northern Group Services, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences2015Subsequently, however, in State v. Brown, 514 So.2d 99 (La.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 1754 , 100 L.Ed.2d 216 (1988), the supreme court articulated that a co-defendant’s blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege was appropriate. 2015Subsequently, however, in State v. Brown, 514 So.2d 99 (La.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 1754 , 100 L.Ed.2d 216 (1988), the supreme court articulated that a co-defendant’s blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege was appropriate. | 4 | 1992–2015 |
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. v. Metrix Warehouse, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Subsequently, however, in State v. Brown, 514 So.2d 99 (La.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 1754 , 100 L.Ed.2d 216 (1988), the supreme court articulated that a co-defendant’s blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege was appropriate. 2015Subsequently, however, in State v. Brown, 514 So.2d 99 (La.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 1754 , 100 L.Ed.2d 216 (1988), the supreme court articulated that a co-defendant’s blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege was appropriate. | 4 | 1992–2015 |
Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
red
2 sentences1988The statute requires not merely that evidence be excluded when such exclusion would deter wrongful police or prosecution conduct, but that the witness be left ‘in substantially the same position as if [he] had claimed the Fifth Amendment privilege.’ Kastigar v. United States, supra, 406 U.S. at 462 , 92 S.Ct. at 1666 , 32 L.Ed.2d at 227 ; Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, supra, 378 U.S. at 79 , 84 S.Ct. at 1609 , 12 L.Ed.2d at 695 . (footnote omitted) United States v. Kurzer, 534 F.2d 511, 516 (2d Cir.1976). 1988The statute requires not merely that evidence be excluded when such exclusion would deter wrongful police or prosecution conduct, but that the witness be left ‘in substantially the same position as if [he] had claimed the Fifth Amendment privilege.’ Kastigar v. United States, supra, 406 U.S. at 462 , 92 S.Ct. at 1666 , 32 L.Ed.2d at 227 ; Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, supra, 378 U.S. at 79 , 84 S.Ct. at 1609 , 12 L.Ed.2d at 695 . (footnote omitted) United States v. Kurzer, 534 F.2d 511, 516 (2d Cir.1976). | 4 | 1988–2014 |
Kastigar v. United States
green
2 sentences2014The Supreme Court expressly noted that “full immunity from prosecution for the offense to which the compelled testimony relates, affords, the witness considerably broader protection j;han does the Fifth Amendment privilege.” Id. . 2014The Supreme Court expressly noted that “full immunity from prosecution for the offense to which the compelled testimony relates, affords, the witness considerably broader protection j;han does the Fifth Amendment privilege.” Id. . | 4 | 1988–2014 |
Gilbert v. California
green
2 sentences2003In Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967), the United States Supreme Court held that the state's taking of a handwriting exemplar did not violate the accused's fifth amendment privilege. 2003In Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967), the United States Supreme Court held that the state's taking of a handwriting exemplar did not violate the accused's fifth amendment privilege. | 4 | 1970–2003 |
People v. Varnum
green
2 sentences1986People v. Varnum, 66 Cal.2d 808 , 59 Cal.Rptr. 108 , 427 P.2d 772 (1967). 1986People v. Varnum, 66 Cal.2d 808 , 59 Cal.Rptr. 108 , 427 P.2d 772 (1967). | 4 | 1979–1986 |
Maryland v. Wallace
green
2 sentences2026The Miranda holding “protects an individual’s Fifth Amendment privilege during incommunicado interrogation in a police-controlled atmosphere.” State v. Taylor, 2001-1638 p. 6 (La.1/14/03), 838 So.2d 729, 739 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1103 , 124 S.Ct. 1036 , 157 L.Ed.2d 886 (2004). 2026The Miranda holding “protects an individual’s Fifth Amendment privilege during incommunicado interrogation in a police-controlled atmosphere.” State v. Taylor, 2001-1638 p. 6 (La.1/14/03), 838 So.2d 729, 739 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1103 , 124 S.Ct. 1036 , 157 L.Ed.2d 886 (2004). | 3 | 2006–2026 |
In re Von Flowers
green
2 sentences2026The Miranda holding “protects an individual’s Fifth Amendment privilege during incommunicado interrogation in a police-controlled atmosphere.” State v. Taylor, 2001-1638 p. 6 (La.1/14/03), 838 So.2d 729, 739 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1103 , 124 S.Ct. 1036 , 157 L.Ed.2d 886 (2004). 2026The Miranda holding “protects an individual’s Fifth Amendment privilege during incommunicado interrogation in a police-controlled atmosphere.” State v. Taylor, 2001-1638 p. 6 (La.1/14/03), 838 So.2d 729, 739 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1103 , 124 S.Ct. 1036 , 157 L.Ed.2d 886 (2004). | 3 | 2006–2026 |
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Fiske
green
2 sentences2026The Miranda holding “protects an individual’s Fifth Amendment privilege during incommunicado interrogation in a police-controlled atmosphere.” State v. Taylor, 2001-1638 p. 6 (La.1/14/03), 838 So.2d 729, 739 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1103 , 124 S.Ct. 1036 , 157 L.Ed.2d 886 (2004). 2026The Miranda holding “protects an individual’s Fifth Amendment privilege during incommunicado interrogation in a police-controlled atmosphere.” State v. Taylor, 2001-1638 p. 6 (La.1/14/03), 838 So.2d 729, 739 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1103 , 124 S.Ct. 1036 , 157 L.Ed.2d 886 (2004). | 3 | 2006–2026 |
| Raffel v. United States green | 3 | 1999–2015 |
Kilgore v. Duckworth
green
2 sentences2007Privilege Against Self-Incrimination The defendant contends that the “trial court denied [him] due process of law and the right to present witnesses in his defense when it permitted Steven James Reinholdt to enter a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” In State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44, 48 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152 , 102 S.Ct. 1022 , 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982), the supreme court held that “[i]t is reversible error to allow a witness to claim a blanket privilege [against self-incrimination].” However, the supreme court concluded that given the facts and circumsta 2007Privilege Against Self-Incrimination The defendant contends that the "trial court denied [him] due process of law and the right to present witnesses in his defense when it permitted Steven James Reinholdt to enter a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." In State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44, 48 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152 , 102 S.Ct. 1022 , 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982), the supreme court held that "[i]t is reversible error to allow a witness to claim a blanket privilege [against self-incrimination]." However, the supreme court concluded that given the facts and circumsta | 3 | 2007–2015 |
Kelley v. Lane
green
2 sentences2007Privilege Against Self-Incrimination The defendant contends that the “trial court denied [him] due process of law and the right to present witnesses in his defense when it permitted Steven James Reinholdt to enter a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” In State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44, 48 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152 , 102 S.Ct. 1022 , 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982), the supreme court held that “[i]t is reversible error to allow a witness to claim a blanket privilege [against self-incrimination].” However, the supreme court concluded that given the facts and circumsta 2007Privilege Against Self-Incrimination The defendant contends that the "trial court denied [him] due process of law and the right to present witnesses in his defense when it permitted Steven James Reinholdt to enter a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." In State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44, 48 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152 , 102 S.Ct. 1022 , 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982), the supreme court held that "[i]t is reversible error to allow a witness to claim a blanket privilege [against self-incrimination]." However, the supreme court concluded that given the facts and circumsta | 3 | 2007–2015 |
| Graham v. Alabama green | 3 | 2007–2015 |
| Crawford v. Washington green | 3 | 2005–2013 |
| State v. Leger green | 3 | 2008–2012 |
| Combs v. Tennessee green | 3 | 1990–2012 |
| Berry v. Louisiana green | 3 | 1990–2012 |
| State v. Jones green | 3 | 1993–1996 |
| Lefkowitz v. Turley green | 2 | 1993–2025 |
| State v. PT green | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Johnson green | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| Bowsher v. Merck & Co. green | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| Odom v. Florida green | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| Schmedt v. De Baca green | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| Culombe v. Connecticut green | 2 | 2003–2014 |
| State v. Gerard green | 2 | 2000–2012 |
| State v. Smith green | 2 | 2005–2006 |
| Namet v. United States green | 2 | 2004–2005 |
| United States v. Martin green | 2 | 1999–2000 |
| State v. Broussard green | 2 | 1993–1996 |
| State v. Ghoram green | 2 | 1979–1988 |
| Commonwealth v. Benson green | 2 | 1981–1986 |
| Trail v. State green | 2 | 1981–1986 |
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.