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.
17 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
Welch v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Compare Bradshaw, 462 U.S. at 1043-44 (holding that suspect’s unprompted question, “Well, what is going to happen to me now?” satisfied Edwards rule) with Welch, 992 So. 2d at 213 -14 (citing Bradshaw and holding that suspect’s unprompted question, “What is going to happen to me now?” satisfied Edwards rule). 2018Compare Bradshaw , 462 U.S. at 1043 -44 , 103 S.Ct. 2830 (holding that suspect's unprompted question, "Well, what is going to happen to me now?" satisfied Edwards rule) with Welch , 992 So.2d at 213-14 (citing Bradshaw and holding that suspect's unprompted question, "What is going to happen to me now?" satisfied Edwards rule). | 2 | 2 |
Arizona v. Robersongreen2 sentences1995The Court has made clear that the Edwards rule applies even where "the police want to interrogate a suspect about an offense that is unrelated to the subject of their initial interrogation." Roberson, 486 U.S. at 677 , 108 S.Ct. at 2096 . 1995The Court has made clear that the Edwards rule applies even where "the police want to interrogate a suspect about an offense that is unrelated to the subject of their initial interrogation." Roberson, 486 U.S. at 677 , 108 S.Ct. at 2096 . | 1 | 4 |
Oregon v. Bradshawgreen2 sentences2018The Court further held that, in asking "Well, what is going to happen to me now?," Bradshaw had "initiated" further conversation for purpose of the Edwards rule. 5 Bradshaw , 462 U.S. at 1045 -46 , 103 S.Ct. 2830 . 2018The Court further held that, in asking "Well, what is going to happen to me now?," Bradshaw had "initiated" further conversation for purpose of the Edwards rule. 5 Bradshaw , 462 U.S. at 1045 -46 , 103 S.Ct. 2830 . | 1 | 3 |
McNeil v. Wisconsingreen2 sentences2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 | 1 | 2 |
Horace Franklin Dunkins, Jr. v. Morris Thigpen, Commissioner of Alabama Department of Corrections, and W.E. Johnson, Warden, Holman Unitgreen2 sentences2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 | 1 | 2 |
Edwards v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2018See Bradshaw , 462 U.S. at 1044 -46 , 103 S.Ct. 2830 (applying the " Edwards rule" as the first inquiry in this context and identifying "the next inquiry [as] 'whether a valid waiver of the right to counsel and the right to silence had occurred, that is, whether the purported waiver was knowing and intelligent and found to be so under the totality of the circumstances' " (quoting Edwards , 451 U.S. at 486 n.9, 101 S.Ct. 1880 ) ). 2018See Bradshaw , 462 U.S. at 1044 -46 , 103 S.Ct. 2830 (applying the " Edwards rule" as the first inquiry in this context and identifying "the next inquiry [as] 'whether a valid waiver of the right to counsel and the right to silence had occurred, that is, whether the purported waiver was knowing and intelligent and found to be so under the totality of the circumstances' " (quoting Edwards , 451 U.S. at 486 n.9, 101 S.Ct. 1880 ) ). | 1 | 1 |
Muehleman v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Muehleman v. State, 3 So. 3d 1149, 1160 (Fla. 2009) (quoting State v. Bowen, 698 So., 2d 248, 251 (Fla. 1997)); see also Wilson v. State, 201 So. 3d 203, 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding the trial court erred by focusing only on the defendant’s legal knowledge); Hooker v. State, 152 So. 3d 799, 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“The likelihood that a defendant would incompetently represent himself is not a valid reason to deny his unequivocal request for self- representation.”). 2018Muehleman v. State, 3 So. 3d 1149, 1160 (Fla. 2009) (quoting State v. Bowen, 698 So., 2d 248, 251 (Fla. 1997)); see also Wilson v. State, 201 So. 3d 203, 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding the trial court erred by focusing only on the defendant’s legal knowledge); Hooker v. State, 152 So. 3d 799, 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“The likelihood that a defendant would incompetently represent himself is not a valid reason to deny his unequivocal request for self- representation.”). | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Id. at 697-98 ; see also Thompson v. State, 37 So. 3d 939, 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting the record only showed that the court questioned the defendant “at some length about legal issues” before denying the request since it was a possible five- year sentence). 8 Significantly, once a trial court determines a defendant is competent to “knowingly and intelligently” waive his right to counsel and does not have severe mental illness, the Faretta inquiry is over. “[W]hether the defendant ‘could provide himself with a substantively qualitative defense’” does not fall under the Edwards exception. 2018Id. at 697-98 ; see also Thompson v. State, 37 So. 3d 939, 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting the record only showed that the court questioned the defendant “at some length about legal issues” before denying the request since it was a possible five- year sentence). 8 Significantly, once a trial court determines a defendant is competent to “knowingly and intelligently” waive his right to counsel and does not have severe mental illness, the Faretta inquiry is over. “[W]hether the defendant ‘could provide himself with a substantively qualitative defense’” does not fall under the Edwards exception. | 1 | 1 |
City of Miami v. Steckloffgreen2 sentences2018See id. 2018See id. | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Muehleman v. State, 3 So. 3d 1149, 1160 (Fla. 2009) (quoting State v. Bowen, 698 So., 2d 248, 251 (Fla. 1997)); see also Wilson v. State, 201 So. 3d 203, 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding the trial court erred by focusing only on the defendant’s legal knowledge); Hooker v. State, 152 So. 3d 799, 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“The likelihood that a defendant would incompetently represent himself is not a valid reason to deny his unequivocal request for self- representation.”). 2018Muehleman v. State, 3 So. 3d 1149, 1160 (Fla. 2009) (quoting State v. Bowen, 698 So., 2d 248, 251 (Fla. 1997)); see also Wilson v. State, 201 So. 3d 203, 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding the trial court erred by focusing only on the defendant’s legal knowledge); Hooker v. State, 152 So. 3d 799, 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“The likelihood that a defendant would incompetently represent himself is not a valid reason to deny his unequivocal request for self- representation.”). | 1 | 1 |
Cravelyn Hooker v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Muehleman v. State, 3 So. 3d 1149, 1160 (Fla. 2009) (quoting State v. Bowen, 698 So., 2d 248, 251 (Fla. 1997)); see also Wilson v. State, 201 So. 3d 203, 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding the trial court erred by focusing only on the defendant’s legal knowledge); Hooker v. State, 152 So. 3d 799, 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“The likelihood that a defendant would incompetently represent himself is not a valid reason to deny his unequivocal request for self- representation.”). 2018Muehleman v. State, 3 So. 3d 1149, 1160 (Fla. 2009) (quoting State v. Bowen, 698 So., 2d 248, 251 (Fla. 1997)); see also Wilson v. State, 201 So. 3d 203, 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding the trial court erred by focusing only on the defendant’s legal knowledge); Hooker v. State, 152 So. 3d 799, 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“The likelihood that a defendant would incompetently represent himself is not a valid reason to deny his unequivocal request for self- representation.”). | 1 | 1 |
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahasseegreen2 sentences2016Cf. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) ("[A] misconception by the trial judge of a controlling principle of law can constitute grounds for reversal.”). . 2016Cf. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) ("[A] misconception by the trial judge of a controlling principle of law can constitute grounds for reversal."). -8- that it did not consider prior to judgment, and to correct any error if the trial court becomes convinced that it has erred." Byrne v. Byrne, 128 So. 3d 2, 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Nor-Tech Powerboats, Inc. v. HPBC, INC.green2 sentences2016Analysis The trial court abused its discretion in denying Edwards' motion for a new trial. 3 Trial courts have “broad discretion in considering a motion for new trial.” Nor-Tech Powerboats, Inc. v. H.P.B.C., Inc., 855 So.2d 103, 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). 2016Analysis The trial court abused its discretion in denying Edwards' motion for a new trial.3 Trial courts have "broad discretion in considering a motion for new trial." Nor- Tech Powerboats, Inc. v. H.P.B.C., Inc., 855 So. 2d 103, 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Cf. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) ("[A] misconception by the trial judge of a controlling principle of law can constitute grounds for reversal."). -8- that it did not consider prior to judgment, and to correct any error if the trial court becomes convinced that it has erred." Byrne v. Byrne, 128 So. 3d 2, 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Bowe v. Butlergreen1 sentence2016A new trial should be granted "where the trial judge felt that substantial justice was not accomplished by the jury's verdict." Bowe v. Butler, 133 So. 2d 347, 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). | 1 | 1 |
McCray v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Because the record evidence does not support the conclusion that appellant suffered from a severe mental illness, the Edwards exception to the constitutional right of self-representation does not apply- In sum, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to hold a Faretta inquiry when appellant unequivocally requested to represent himself after the competency hearing. 3 See McCray v. State, 71 So.3d 848, 864 (Fla.2011) (although a trial court’s decision on a defendant’s request for self-representation is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion, a trial court’s failure to take the p 2012Because the record evidence does not support the conclusion that appellant suffered from a severe mental illness, the Edwards exception to the constitutional right of self-representation does not apply- In sum, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to hold a Faretta inquiry when appellant unequivocally requested to represent himself after the competency hearing. 3 See McCray v. State, 71 So.3d 848, 864 (Fla.2011) (although a trial court’s decision on a defendant’s request for self-representation is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion, a trial court’s failure to take the p | 1 | 1 |
| Fitzpatrick v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Blake v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Craig v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. John Antonio Evans, United States of America v. William McIntyregreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Pedro Angel Gomezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Edward Alan Hill v. Anthony J. Brigano, Wardengreen | 1 | 1 |
Michael Holman v. Mike Kemna, Superintendentgreen2 sentences2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 | 1 | 1 |
| Stein v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mancinogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maryland v. Shatzer
green
2 sentences2011And see Maryland v. Shatzer, — U.S. -,-, 130 S.Ct. 1213, 1219-20 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2010) (explaining that the Edwards rule means “a voluntary Miranda waiver is sufficient at the time of an initial attempted interrogation to protect a suspect’s right to have counsel present, but is not sufficient at the time of subsequent attempts if the suspect initially requested the presence of counsel”). 2011And see Maryland v. Shatzer, — U.S. -,-, 130 S.Ct. 1213, 1219-20 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2010) (explaining that the Edwards rule means “a voluntary Miranda waiver is sufficient at the time of an initial attempted interrogation to protect a suspect’s right to have counsel present, but is not sufficient at the time of subsequent attempts if the suspect initially requested the presence of counsel”). | 2 | 2011–2021 |
Anders v. California
green
1 sentence2026At the revocation hearing below, the trial court repeatedly referred to Edwards' violation admission as an "open plea." Additionally, appellate counsel in this Anders1 appeal alleged in the initial brief that 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Gregory David Larkin v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences2018For example, in Larkin v. State, 147 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 2014), the Florida Supreme Court determined a trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant’s request to waive counsel after multiple, proper Faretta inquires. 2018For example, in Larkin v. State, 147 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 2014), the Florida Supreme Court determined a trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant’s request to waive counsel after multiple, proper Faretta inquires. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Anthony Williams v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 697-98 ; see also Thompson v. State, 37 So. 3d 939, 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting the record only showed that the court questioned the defendant “at some length about legal issues” before denying the request since it was a possible five- year sentence). 8 Significantly, once a trial court determines a defendant is competent to “knowingly and intelligently” waive his right to counsel and does not have severe mental illness, the Faretta inquiry is over. “[W]hether the defendant ‘could provide himself with a substantively qualitative defense’” does not fall under the Edwards exception. 2018Id. at 697-98 ; see also Thompson v. State, 37 So. 3d 939, 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting the record only showed that the court questioned the defendant “at some length about legal issues” before denying the request since it was a possible five- year sentence). 8 Significantly, once a trial court determines a defendant is competent to “knowingly and intelligently” waive his right to counsel and does not have severe mental illness, the Faretta inquiry is over. “[W]hether the defendant ‘could provide himself with a substantively qualitative defense’” does not fall under the Edwards exception. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Alford v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
green
2 sentences2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Marsh v. Virginia green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| United States v. Mark A. Thomas and Sabrina A. Richards, A/K/A Sabrina A. Riggs green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Ventimiglia v. St. Louis County, Missouri
neutral
2 sentences2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Illinois v. Braggs green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Carter v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Keys v. State
green
2 sentences2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
United States v. Bert Lancaster, United States of America v. Derrick Vanlierop
green
2 sentences2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Gonzalez v. State green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Parker v. State
green
2 sentences2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Omene v. Morrison green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Santos v. United States green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Kuhns v. Team Bank green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lancaster v. United States
green
2 sentences2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Maryland v. Blake
green
2 sentences2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Robert Dale Henderson v. Harry K. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| United States v. Walker green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Blair-Bey v. Nix green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Young v. Paskett green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Chambers v. DuCharme
green
2 sentences2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 2005See Palaggi v. Chrans, 221 F.3d 1339 (7th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) ("Palaggi's confession in Illinois, initiated by him two days after the Edwards violation in Florida and after receiving Miranda warnings, was sufficiently removed from any taint."); Holman v. Kemna, 212 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant-initiated confession given morning after post-invocation of counsel questioning admissible), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1021 , 121 S.Ct. 587 , 148 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 , 120 S.Ct. 2015 , 146 L.Ed.2d 964 (2000 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Summers v. State green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Rhode Island v. Innis green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| United States of America Ex Rel. Miguel A. Espinoza v. J.W. Fairman, Warden green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State v. Padron green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Luman v. State neutral | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Chambers v. State green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| State v. Dukes green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Presley v. State green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Cappetta v. Wainwright green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Spencer v. State green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Blatch v. State green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.