giving of Miranda warning in Alabama

13 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2014 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Alabama 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Kidd v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1994 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2001–2009 2 sentences 2009A State is entitled, in such situations, to leave to the judge and jury under its own rules of evidence the resolution of the extent to which postarrest silence may be deemed to impeach a criminal defendant's own testimony.' 1166 " 455 U.S. at 607 , 102 S.Ct. 1309 . `"[T]he key to the exclusionary rule of Doyle is the giving of Miranda warnings."' Kidd v. State, 649 So.2d 1304, 1307 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), quoting Sulie v. Duckworth, 689 F.2d 128 , 132 n. 1 (7th Cir.1982) (Cudahy, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1043 , 103 S.Ct. 1439 , 75 L.Ed.2d 796 (1983). 2009*A State is entitled, in such situations, to leave to the judge and jury under its own rules of evidence the resolution of the extent to which postarrest silence may be deemed to impeach a criminal defendant’s own testimony.’ “455 U. S. at 607, 102 S.Ct. 1309 . ‘ “[T]he key to the exclusionary rule of Doyle is the giving of Miranda warnings.’” Kidd v. State, 649 So.2d 1304, 1307 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), quoting Sulie v. Duckworth, 689 F.2d 128 ,132 n. 1 (7th Cir.1982) (Cudahy, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1043 , 103 S.Ct. 1439 , 75 L.Ed.2d 796 (1983).	1	2
Fletcher v. Weirgreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2001–2009 2 sentences 2009A State is entitled, in such situations, to leave to the judge and jury under its own rules of evidence the resolution of the extent to which postarrest silence may be deemed to impeach a criminal defendant’s own testimony.’ “455 U. S. at 607, 102 S.Ct. 1309 . ‘ “[T]he key to the exclusionary rule of Doyle is the giving of Miranda warnings.’” Kidd v. State, 649 So.2d 1304, 1307 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), quoting Sulie v. Duckworth, 689 F.2d 128 ,132 n. 1 (7th Cir.1982) (Cudahy, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1043 , 103 S.Ct. 1439 , 75 L.Ed.2d 796 (1983). 2009A State is entitled, in such situations, to leave to the judge and jury under its own rules of evidence the resolution of the extent to which postarrest silence may be deemed to impeach a criminal defendant’s own testimony.’ “455 U. S. at 607, 102 S.Ct. 1309 . ‘ “[T]he key to the exclusionary rule of Doyle is the giving of Miranda warnings.’” Kidd v. State, 649 So.2d 1304, 1307 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), quoting Sulie v. Duckworth, 689 F.2d 128 ,132 n. 1 (7th Cir.1982) (Cudahy, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1043 , 103 S.Ct. 1439 , 75 L.Ed.2d 796 (1983).	1	2
Sheely v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 1 sentence 1995See also Sheely v. State , 629 So.2d 23 , 29 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993); Williams v. State , 601 So.2d 1062 , 1072 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
Billy G. v. United States green scotus · 1992 2 sentences 2014A voluntary statement made by a suspect, not in response to interrogation, is not barred by the Fifth Amendment and is admissible with or without the giving of Miranda warnings,”), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1011 , 112 S.Ct. 1777 , 118 L.Ed.2d 434 (1992). ““““Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence. 2014A voluntary statement made by a suspect, not in response to interrogation, is not barred by the Fifth Amendment and is admissible with or without the giving of Miranda warnings.’), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1011 , 112 S.Ct. 1777 , 118 L.Ed.2d 434 (1992). “ ““ “ ‘Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence.	10	1994–2014
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Independent Petrochemical Corp. green scotus · 1992 2 sentences 2014A voluntary statement made by a suspect, not in response to interrogation, is not barred by the Fifth Amendment and is admissible with or without the giving of Miranda warnings,”), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1011 , 112 S.Ct. 1777 , 118 L.Ed.2d 434 (1992). ““““Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence. 2014A voluntary statement made by a suspect, not in response to interrogation, is not barred by the Fifth Amendment and is admissible with or without the giving of Miranda warnings.’), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1011 , 112 S.Ct. 1777 , 118 L.Ed.2d 434 (1992). “ ““ “ ‘Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence.	10	1994–2014
Patterson v. United States green scotus · 1992 2 sentences 2014A voluntary statement made by a suspect, not in response to interrogation, is not barred by the Fifth Amendment and is admissible with or without the giving of Miranda warnings,”), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1011 , 112 S.Ct. 1777 , 118 L.Ed.2d 434 (1992). ““““Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence. 2014A voluntary statement made by a suspect, not in response to interrogation, is not barred by the Fifth Amendment and is admissible with or without the giving of Miranda warnings.’), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1011 , 112 S.Ct. 1777 , 118 L.Ed.2d 434 (1992). “ ““ “ ‘Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence.	9	1994–2014
Eugene Keith Sulie v. Jack Duckworth green ca7 · 1982 2 sentences 2009A State is entitled, in such situations, to leave to the judge and jury under its own rules of evidence the resolution of the extent to which postarrest silence may be deemed to impeach a criminal defendant's own testimony.' 1166 " 455 U.S. at 607 , 102 S.Ct. 1309 . `"[T]he key to the exclusionary rule of Doyle is the giving of Miranda warnings."' Kidd v. State, 649 So.2d 1304, 1307 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), quoting Sulie v. Duckworth, 689 F.2d 128 , 132 n. 1 (7th Cir.1982) (Cudahy, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1043 , 103 S.Ct. 1439 , 75 L.Ed.2d 796 (1983). 2009*A State is entitled, in such situations, to leave to the judge and jury under its own rules of evidence the resolution of the extent to which postarrest silence may be deemed to impeach a criminal defendant’s own testimony.’ “455 U. S. at 607, 102 S.Ct. 1309 . ‘ “[T]he key to the exclusionary rule of Doyle is the giving of Miranda warnings.’” Kidd v. State, 649 So.2d 1304, 1307 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), quoting Sulie v. Duckworth, 689 F.2d 128 ,132 n. 1 (7th Cir.1982) (Cudahy, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1043 , 103 S.Ct. 1439 , 75 L.Ed.2d 796 (1983).	3	1994–2009
Sulie v. Duckworth green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 2009A State is entitled, in such situations, to leave to the judge and jury under its own rules of evidence the resolution of the extent to which postarrest silence may be deemed to impeach a criminal defendant's own testimony.' 1166 " 455 U.S. at 607 , 102 S.Ct. 1309 . `"[T]he key to the exclusionary rule of Doyle is the giving of Miranda warnings."' Kidd v. State, 649 So.2d 1304, 1307 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), quoting Sulie v. Duckworth, 689 F.2d 128 , 132 n. 1 (7th Cir.1982) (Cudahy, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1043 , 103 S.Ct. 1439 , 75 L.Ed.2d 796 (1983). 2009*A State is entitled, in such situations, to leave to the judge and jury under its own rules of evidence the resolution of the extent to which postarrest silence may be deemed to impeach a criminal defendant’s own testimony.’ “455 U. S. at 607, 102 S.Ct. 1309 . ‘ “[T]he key to the exclusionary rule of Doyle is the giving of Miranda warnings.’” Kidd v. State, 649 So.2d 1304, 1307 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), quoting Sulie v. Duckworth, 689 F.2d 128 ,132 n. 1 (7th Cir.1982) (Cudahy, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1043 , 103 S.Ct. 1439 , 75 L.Ed.2d 796 (1983).	3	1994–2009
Miranda v. Arizona green scotus · 1966 2 sentences 2014The fundamental import of the privilege while an individual is in custody is not whether he is allowed to talk to the police without the benefit of warnings and counsel, but whether he can be interrogated_ Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by [the holding in Miranda ].’ ““““Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 2014The fundamental import of the privilege while an individual is in custody is not whether he is allowed to talk to the police without the benefit of warnings and counsel, but whether he can be interrogated_ Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by [the holding in Miranda ].’ ““““Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).	2	2006–2014
LaGrange v. Texas green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 2009A State is entitled, in such situations, to leave to the judge and jury under its own rules of evidence the resolution of the extent to which postarrest silence may be deemed to impeach a criminal defendant's own testimony.' 1166 " 455 U.S. at 607 , 102 S.Ct. 1309 . `"[T]he key to the exclusionary rule of Doyle is the giving of Miranda warnings."' Kidd v. State, 649 So.2d 1304, 1307 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), quoting Sulie v. Duckworth, 689 F.2d 128 , 132 n. 1 (7th Cir.1982) (Cudahy, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1043 , 103 S.Ct. 1439 , 75 L.Ed.2d 796 (1983). 2009*A State is entitled, in such situations, to leave to the judge and jury under its own rules of evidence the resolution of the extent to which postarrest silence may be deemed to impeach a criminal defendant’s own testimony.’ “455 U. S. at 607, 102 S.Ct. 1309 . ‘ “[T]he key to the exclusionary rule of Doyle is the giving of Miranda warnings.’” Kidd v. State, 649 So.2d 1304, 1307 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), quoting Sulie v. Duckworth, 689 F.2d 128 ,132 n. 1 (7th Cir.1982) (Cudahy, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1043 , 103 S.Ct. 1439 , 75 L.Ed.2d 796 (1983).	2	1994–2009
Pool v. Wyrick green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 2009A State is entitled, in such situations, to leave to the judge and jury under its own rules of evidence the resolution of the extent to which postarrest silence may be deemed to impeach a criminal defendant's own testimony.' 1166 " 455 U.S. at 607 , 102 S.Ct. 1309 . `"[T]he key to the exclusionary rule of Doyle is the giving of Miranda warnings."' Kidd v. State, 649 So.2d 1304, 1307 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), quoting Sulie v. Duckworth, 689 F.2d 128 , 132 n. 1 (7th Cir.1982) (Cudahy, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1043 , 103 S.Ct. 1439 , 75 L.Ed.2d 796 (1983). 2009*A State is entitled, in such situations, to leave to the judge and jury under its own rules of evidence the resolution of the extent to which postarrest silence may be deemed to impeach a criminal defendant’s own testimony.’ “455 U. S. at 607, 102 S.Ct. 1309 . ‘ “[T]he key to the exclusionary rule of Doyle is the giving of Miranda warnings.’” Kidd v. State, 649 So.2d 1304, 1307 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), quoting Sulie v. Duckworth, 689 F.2d 128 ,132 n. 1 (7th Cir.1982) (Cudahy, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1043 , 103 S.Ct. 1439 , 75 L.Ed.2d 796 (1983).	2	1994–2009
Williams v. State green alacrimapp · 1992 1 sentence 1995See also Sheely v. State , 629 So.2d 23 , 29 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993); Williams v. State , 601 So.2d 1062 , 1072 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991).	1	1995–1995
Worthington v. State green alacrimapp · 1994 1 sentence 1995A voluntary statement made by a suspect, not in response to interrogation, is not barred by the Fifth Amendment and is admissible with or without the giving of Miranda warnings.'), cert. denied, [503] U.S. [1011], 112 S.Ct. 1777 , 118 L.Ed.2d 434 (1992)." *Page 1377 Worthington v. State , 652 So.2d 790 , 792 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994).	1	1995–1995

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-40 (6) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-49 (6) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-53 (5) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-45 (4) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-47 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

IL 62 (1975–2026) TX 45 (1982–2015) WA 23 (1984–2014) CA 16 (1970–2023) MA 16 (1975–2019) FL 15 (1980–2011) PA 15 (1975–2021) OR 14 (1982–2019) AL 13 (1994–2014) NY 11 (1977–2000) MI 11 (1980–2020) TN 10 (1977–2025) IN 8 (1976–2017) MO 8 (1978–2017) GA 8 (1984–2021) ME 7 (1979–2001) AZ 7 (1978–2017) MD 6 (1976–2003) NM 6 (1983–2023) MS 6 (1980–1992) SC 5 (1996–2023) WV 5 (1979–2025) CT 5 (1986–2025) KS 5 (1983–2013) CO 4 (1976–2025) AR 4 (1995–2006) OK 4 (1986–1998) KY 4 (2014–2022) LA 4 (1981–2010) NJ 3 (1981–2000) VA 3 (1983–2001) RI 3 (1981–2006) OH 3 (1999–2005) SD 2 (1985–2006) AK 2 (1975–1975) NE 2 (2016–2016) VT 2 (1994–2021) WY 2 (1983–2005) ID 2 (2014–2020) NH 2 (1983–1987) ND 2 (1991–1998) WI 2 (1993–1997)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check