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.
13 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Fydagreen2 sentences2024See id.; see also People v Fyda, 288 Mich App 446, 462 ; 793 NW2d 712 (2010) (holding that “[t]he fact that the prosecutor employed colorful rhetoric” when addressing the weaknesses of a defense theory during closing arguments “does not make the response to [the defendant’s] arguments disproportionate”). 2024See id.; see also People v Fyda, 288 Mich App 446, 462 ; 793 NW2d 712 (2010) (holding that “[t]he fact that the prosecutor employed colorful rhetoric” when addressing the weaknesses of a defense theory during closing arguments “does not make the response to [the defendant’s] arguments disproportionate”). | 3 | 9 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Fields
green
2 sentences2024Defendant, however, cannot “have his cake and eat it too,” People v Hutchinson, 155 Mich App 84 , 88 n 1; 399 NW2d 448 (1986), for once he places into evidence his own expert’s psychological report (that used information obtained from defendant), the Fifth Amendment (or its state counterpart) cannot then be used as a shield to prevent the prosecution from accessing similar information from defendant for their own expert’s use, People v Fields, 450 Mich 94, 109 ; 538 NW2d 356 (1995) (the “protective shield of the Fifth Amendment should not be converted into a sword that cuts back on the area of 2024Defendant, however, cannot “have his cake and eat it too,” People v Hutchinson, 155 Mich App 84 , 88 n 1; 399 NW2d 448 (1986), for once he places into evidence his own expert’s psychological report (that used information obtained from defendant), the Fifth Amendment (or its state counterpart) cannot then be used as a shield to prevent the prosecution from accessing similar information from defendant for their own expert’s use, People v Fields, 450 Mich 94, 109 ; 538 NW2d 356 (1995) (the “protective shield of the Fifth Amendment should not be converted into a sword that cuts back on the area of | 3 | 2020–2024 |
People v. Watson
green
2 sentences2020People v Fields, 450 Mich 94, 115 ; 538 NW2d 356 (1995); People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572 , 592- 593; 629 NW2d 411 (2001). 2020People v Fields, 450 Mich 94, 115 ; 538 NW2d 356 (1995); People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572 , 592- 593; 629 NW2d 411 (2001). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Hutchinson
green
2 sentences2024Defendant, however, cannot “have his cake and eat it too,” People v Hutchinson, 155 Mich App 84 , 88 n 1; 399 NW2d 448 (1986), for once he places into evidence his own expert’s psychological report (that used information obtained from defendant), the Fifth Amendment (or its state counterpart) cannot then be used as a shield to prevent the prosecution from accessing similar information from defendant for their own expert’s use, People v Fields, 450 Mich 94, 109 ; 538 NW2d 356 (1995) (the “protective shield of the Fifth Amendment should not be converted into a sword that cuts back on the area of 2024Defendant, however, cannot “have his cake and eat it too,” People v Hutchinson, 155 Mich App 84 , 88 n 1; 399 NW2d 448 (1986), for once he places into evidence his own expert’s psychological report (that used information obtained from defendant), the Fifth Amendment (or its state counterpart) cannot then be used as a shield to prevent the prosecution from accessing similar information from defendant for their own expert’s use, People v Fields, 450 Mich 94, 109 ; 538 NW2d 356 (1995) (the “protective shield of the Fifth Amendment should not be converted into a sword that cuts back on the area of | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Brown v. United States
green
2 sentences1995It would make of the Fifth Amendment not only a humane safeguard against judicially coerced self-disclosure but a positive invitation to mutilate the truth a party offers to tell. [Brown v United States, 356 US 148, 155-156 ; 78 S Ct 622 ; 2 L Ed 2d 589 (1958).] "[T]he protective shield of the Fifth Amendment should [not] be converted into a sword that cuts back on the area of legitimate comment by the prosecutor on the weaknesses in the defense case.” United States v Hastings, 461 US 499, 515 ; 103 S Ct 1974 ; 76 L Ed 2d 96 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring). *110 In general, 20 where a defenda 1995It would make of the Fifth Amendment not only a humane safeguard against judicially coerced self-disclosure but a positive invitation to mutilate the truth a party offers to tell. [Brown v United States, 356 US 148, 155-156 ; 78 S Ct 622 ; 2 L Ed 2d 589 (1958).] "[T]he protective shield of the Fifth Amendment should [not] be converted into a sword that cuts back on the area of legitimate comment by the prosecutor on the weaknesses in the defense case.” United States v Hastings, 461 US 499, 515 ; 103 S Ct 1974 ; 76 L Ed 2d 96 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring). *110 In general, 20 where a defenda | 1 | 1995–1995 |
United States v. Hasting
green
2 sentences1995It would make of the Fifth Amendment not only a humane safeguard against judicially coerced self-disclosure but a positive invitation to mutilate the truth a party offers to tell. [Brown v United States, 356 US 148, 155-156 ; 78 S Ct 622 ; 2 L Ed 2d 589 (1958).] "[T]he protective shield of the Fifth Amendment should [not] be converted into a sword that cuts back on the area of legitimate comment by the prosecutor on the weaknesses in the defense case.” United States v Hastings, 461 US 499, 515 ; 103 S Ct 1974 ; 76 L Ed 2d 96 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring). *110 In general, 20 where a defenda 1995It would make of the Fifth Amendment not only a humane safeguard against judicially coerced self-disclosure but a positive invitation to mutilate the truth a party offers to tell. [Brown v United States, 356 US 148, 155-156 ; 78 S Ct 622 ; 2 L Ed 2d 589 (1958).] "[T]he protective shield of the Fifth Amendment should [not] be converted into a sword that cuts back on the area of legitimate comment by the prosecutor on the weaknesses in the defense case.” United States v Hastings, 461 US 499, 515 ; 103 S Ct 1974 ; 76 L Ed 2d 96 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring). *110 In general, 20 where a defenda | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.