Sixth Amendment violation in Wyoming

13 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Wyoming 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 (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Davis v. Washingtongreen scotus · 2006 · cited in 2 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015Having concluded that the district court did not err in its Sixth Amendment analysis, we next consider whether the court abused its discretion in admitting Mr. Laster's statements over Mr. Bruce's hearsay objections, See Davis, 547 U.S. at 821 , 126 S.Ct. at 2273 (though not barred by the confrontation clause, non-testimonial statement remains subject to traditional limitations on hearsay evidence); see also Majors v. State, 2011 WY 63, ¶ 24 , 252 P.3d 435, 441, n. 2 (Wyo.2011); Bush, ¶ 28, 193 P.3d at 210 . 2. 2015Having concluded that the district court did not err in its Sixth Amendment analysis, we next consider whether the court abused its discretion in admitting Mr. Laster's statements over Mr. Bruce's hearsay objections, See Davis, 547 U.S. at 821 , 126 S.Ct. at 2273 (though not barred by the confrontation clause, non-testimonial statement remains subject to traditional limitations on hearsay evidence); see also Majors v. State, 2011 WY 63, ¶ 24 , 252 P.3d 435, 441, n. 2 (Wyo.2011); Bush, ¶ 28, 193 P.3d at 210 . 2.	2	2
Michigan v. Bryantgreen scotus · 2011 · cited in 2 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015The existence of an ongoing emergency is relevant to determining the primary purpose of the interrogation because an emergency focuses the participants on something other than "proviing] past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution." Rather, it focuses them on "end[ing] a threatening situation." Bryant, 562 U.S. at --, 131 S.Ct. at 1157 (footnote and internal citations omitted). [¶27] To summarize, the Sixth Amendment analysis requires an objective determination of an interrogation's "primary purpose" based on the cireumstances in which the interrogation takes place as well a 2015The existence of an ongoing emergency is relevant to determining the primary purpose of the interrogation because an emergency focuses the participants on something other than "proviing] past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution." Rather, it focuses them on "end[ing] a threatening situation." Bryant, 562 U.S. at --, 131 S.Ct. at 1157 (footnote and internal citations omitted). [¶27] To summarize, the Sixth Amendment analysis requires an objective determination of an interrogation's "primary purpose" based on the cireumstances in which the interrogation takes place as well a	2	2
Majors v. Stategreen wyo · 2011 · cited in 2 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015Having concluded that the district court did not err in its Sixth Amendment analysis, we next consider whether the court abused its discretion in admitting Mr. Laster's statements over Mr. Bruce's hearsay objections, See Davis, 547 U.S. at 821 , 126 S.Ct. at 2273 (though not barred by the confrontation clause, non-testimonial statement remains subject to traditional limitations on hearsay evidence); see also Majors v. State, 2011 WY 63, ¶ 24 , 252 P.3d 435, 441, n. 2 (Wyo.2011); Bush, ¶ 28, 193 P.3d at 210 . 2. 2015Having concluded that the district court did not err in its Sixth Amendment analysis, we next consider whether the court abused its discretion in admitting Mr. Laster's statements over Mr. Bruce's hearsay objections, See Davis, 547 U.S. at 821 , 126 S.Ct. at 2273 (though not barred by the confrontation clause, non-testimonial statement remains subject to traditional limitations on hearsay evidence); see also Majors v. State, 2011 WY 63, ¶ 24 , 252 P.3d 435, 441, n. 2 (Wyo.2011); Bush, ¶ 28, 193 P.3d at 210 . 2.	2	2
Cunningham v. Superior Courtgreen calctapp · 1986 · cited in 2 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991See Cunningham v. Superior Court (Ventura County), 177 Cal. App.3d 336 , 222 Cal. Rptr. 854 (1986); Luke, 74 Cal. Rptr. 771 , narcotic commitment; and Bedford, 447 P.2d 193 , involuntary hospitalization. 1991See Cunningham v. Superior Court (Ventura County), 177 Cal. App.3d 336 , 222 Cal. Rptr. 854 (1986); Luke, 74 Cal. Rptr. 771 , narcotic commitment; and Bedford, 447 P.2d 193 , involuntary hospitalization.	2	2
Vigil v. Stategreen wyo · 2004 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025See Vigil v. State, 2004 WY 110 , ¶¶ 18–19, 98 P.3d 172 , 177–79 (Wyo. 2004) (testimonial hearsay inadmissible absent legal unavailability or prior opportunity for cross- examination). 2025See Vigil v. State, 2004 WY 110 , ¶¶ 18–19, 98 P.3d 172 , 177–79 (Wyo. 2004) (testimonial hearsay inadmissible absent legal unavailability or prior opportunity for cross- examination).	1	1
United States v. Rogersgreen ca10 · 1992 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006For example, in United States v. Rogers, 960 F.2d 1501, 1513 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1035 , 113 S.Ct. 817 , 121 L.Ed.2d 689 (1992), the court upheld a time restriction of forty-five to fifty minutes where the defendant was tried on twenty-six counts of violating various federal laws. 2006For example, in United States v. Rogers, 960 F.2d 1501, 1513 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1035 , 113 S.Ct. 817 , 121 L.Ed.2d 689 (1992), the court upheld a time restriction of forty-five to fifty minutes where the defendant was tried on twenty-six counts of violating various federal laws.	1	1
Herring v. New Yorkgreen scotus · 1975 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006Herring, 422 U.S. at 862 , 95 S.Ct. at 2554 (emphasis added). [¶34] Many courts have failed to find an abuse of discretion or a Sixth Amendment violation despite a time restriction on closing arguments. 2006Herring, 422 U.S. at 862 , 95 S.Ct. at 2554 (emphasis added). [¶34] Many courts have failed to find an abuse of discretion or a Sixth Amendment violation despite a time restriction on closing arguments.	1	1
State v. Leavittgreen nj · 1987 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001State v. Leavitt, 107 N.J. 534 , 527 A.2d 403, 405 (1987). [426] The implied consent decision is not a critical stage of the criminal prosecution under Sixth Amendment analysis, and there are no independent state grounds that require a different result. 2001State v. Leavitt, 107 N.J. 534 , 527 A.2d 403, 405 (1987). [426] The implied consent decision is not a critical stage of the criminal prosecution under Sixth Amendment analysis, and there are no independent state grounds that require a different result.	1	1
United States v. Thomas Griffingreen ca11 · 1983 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989 2 sentences 1989See also United States v. Griffin, 699 F.2d 1102, 1109 (11th Cir.1983) (preferable process is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ): To preclude, unequivocally and without cavil, presentation of the issue [ineffectiveness of counsel] for the first time on appeal is not to deny the convicted an opportunity to present it. 1989See also United States v. Griffin, 699 F.2d 1102, 1109 (11th Cir.1983) (preferable process is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ): To preclude, unequivocally and without cavil, presentation of the issue [ineffectiveness of counsel] for the first time on appeal is not to deny the convicted an opportunity to present it.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (23)

Case	Cited	Years
Bush v. State green wyo · 2008 2 sentences 2015Having concluded that the district court did not err in its Sixth Amendment analysis, we next consider whether the court abused its discretion in admitting Mr. Laster's statements over Mr. Bruce's hearsay objections, See Davis, 547 U.S. at 821 , 126 S.Ct. at 2273 (though not barred by the confrontation clause, non-testimonial statement remains subject to traditional limitations on hearsay evidence); see also Majors v. State, 2011 WY 63, ¶ 24 , 252 P.3d 435, 441, n. 2 (Wyo.2011); Bush, ¶ 28, 193 P.3d at 210 . 2. 2015See Davis, 547 U.S. at 821 , 126 S.Ct. at 2273 (though not barred by the confrontation clause, non-testimonial statement remains subject to traditional limitations on hearsay evidence); see also Majors v. State, 2011 WY 63, ¶ 24 , 252 P.3d 435, 441, n.2 (Wyo. 2011); Bush, ¶ 28, 193 P.3d at 210 . 2.	2	2015–2015
BD. OF CTY. COM'RS v. Scruggs green fladistctapp · 1989 2 sentences 1991The due process right for representation did not justify a different result from the Sixth Amendment requirement in the criminal cases. "[C]ounsel is required in each case because fundamental constitutional interests are at stake." Scruggs, 545 So.2d at 912 . "[T]he maximum fee limit established [by statute] is a constitutionally impermissible legislative encroachment upon the judiciary's power of `ensuring adequate representation by competent counsel.'" Id. at 912 (quoting Makemson, 491 So.2d at 1113 ). 1991The due process right for representation did not justify a different result from the Sixth Amendment requirement in the criminal cases. "[C]ounsel is required in each case because fundamental constitutional interests are at stake." Scruggs, 545 So.2d at 912 . "[T]he maximum fee limit established [by statute] is a constitutionally impermissible legislative encroachment upon the judiciary's power of `ensuring adequate representation by competent counsel.'" Id. at 912 (quoting Makemson, 491 So.2d at 1113 ).	2	1991–1991
Makemson v. Martin County green fla · 1986 2 sentences 1991The due process right for representation did not justify a different result from the Sixth Amendment requirement in the criminal cases. “[Cjounsel is required in each ease because fundamental constitutional interests are at stake.” Scruggs, 545 So.2d at 912 . “[T]he maximum fee limit established [by statute] is a constitutionally impermissible legislative encroachment upon the judiciary’s power of ‘ensuring adequate representation by competent counsel.’ ” Id. at 912 (quoting Makemson, 491 So.2d at 1113 ). 1991The due process right for representation did not justify a different result from the Sixth Amendment requirement in the criminal cases. "[C]ounsel is required in each case because fundamental constitutional interests are at stake." Scruggs, 545 So.2d at 912 . "[T]he maximum fee limit established [by statute] is a constitutionally impermissible legislative encroachment upon the judiciary's power of `ensuring adequate representation by competent counsel.'" Id. at 912 (quoting Makemson, 491 So.2d at 1113 ).	2	1991–1991
Luke v. County of Los Angeles green calctapp · 1969 2 sentences 1991See Cunningham v. Superior Court (Ventura County), 177 Cal.App.3d 336 , 222 Cal.Rptr. 854 (1986); Luke, 74 Cal.Rptr. 771 , narcotic commitment; and Bedford, 447 P.2d 193 , involuntary hospitalization. 1991See Cunningham v. Superior Court (Ventura County), 177 Cal. App.3d 336 , 222 Cal. Rptr. 854 (1986); Luke, 74 Cal. Rptr. 771 , narcotic commitment; and Bedford, 447 P.2d 193 , involuntary hospitalization.	2	1991–1991
Mental Condition of Bedford v. Salt Lake County green utah · 1968 2 sentences 1991See Cunningham v. Superior Court (Ventura County), 177 Cal.App.3d 336 , 222 Cal.Rptr. 854 (1986); Luke, 74 Cal.Rptr. 771 , narcotic commitment; and Bedford, 447 P.2d 193 , involuntary hospitalization. 1991See Cunningham v. Superior Court (Ventura County), 177 Cal. App.3d 336 , 222 Cal. Rptr. 854 (1986); Luke, 74 Cal. Rptr. 771 , narcotic commitment; and Bedford, 447 P.2d 193 , involuntary hospitalization.	2	1991–1991
Blaschke v. Causey green scotus · 1992 2 sentences 2006For example, in United States v. Rogers, 960 F.2d 1501, 1513 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1035 , 113 S.Ct. 817 , 121 L.Ed.2d 689 (1992), the court upheld a time restriction of forty-five to fifty minutes where the defendant was tried on twenty-six counts of violating various federal laws. 2006For example, in United States v. Rogers, 960 F.2d 1501, 1513 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1035 , 113 S.Ct. 817 , 121 L.Ed.2d 689 (1992), the court upheld a time restriction of forty-five to fifty minutes where the defendant was tried on twenty-six counts of violating various federal laws.	1	2006–2006
Holman v. United States green scotus · 1992 2 sentences 2006For example, in United States v. Rogers, 960 F.2d 1501, 1513 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1035 , 113 S.Ct. 817 , 121 L.Ed.2d 689 (1992), the court upheld a time restriction of forty-five to fifty minutes where the defendant was tried on twenty-six counts of violating various federal laws. 2006For example, in United States v. Rogers, 960 F.2d 1501, 1513 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1035 , 113 S.Ct. 817 , 121 L.Ed.2d 689 (1992), the court upheld a time restriction of forty-five to fifty minutes where the defendant was tried on twenty-six counts of violating various federal laws.	1	2006–2006
United States v. Martinez-Salazar green scotus · 2000 2 sentences 2004Instead, the Court concluded that “Martinez-Salazar had the option of letting [the venireperson] sit on the petit jury and, upon conviction, pursuing a Sixth Amendment challenge on appeal.” Id. at 315 , 120 S.Ct. 774 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 . 2004Instead, the Court concluded that “Martinez-Salazar had the option of letting [the venireperson] sit on the petit jury and, upon conviction, pursuing a Sixth Amendment challenge on appeal.” Id. at 315 , 120 S.Ct. 774 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 .	1	2004–2004
Kuhlmann v. Wilson green scotus · 1986 2 sentences 2003In Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 459 , 106 S.Ct. 2616 , 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986), the defendant was placed in a cell with a prisoner who, unbeknownst to him, was a police informant who had agreed to listen to his conversations and report his remarks back to detectives. 2003In Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 459 , 106 S.Ct. 2616 , 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986), the defendant was placed in a cell with a prisoner who, unbeknownst to him, was a police informant who had agreed to listen to his conversations and report his remarks back to detectives.	1	2003–2003
Perry v. Leeke green scotus · 1989 2 sentences 1992Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272 , 109 S.Ct. 594 , 102 L.Ed.2d 624 (1989). 1992Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272 , 109 S.Ct. 594 , 102 L.Ed.2d 624 (1989).	1	1992–1992
United States v. Joseph Albert Pelletier green ca1 · 1988 2 sentences 1989Cf. United States v. Pelletier, 845 F.2d 1126 (1st Cir.1988) (issue as not raised at trial and not considered on first appeal, but the Sixth Amendment issue subject to consideration in post-conviction). 1989Cf. United States v. Pelletier, 845 F.2d 1126 (1st Cir.1988) (issue as not raised at trial and not considered on first appeal, but the Sixth Amendment issue subject to consideration in post-conviction).	1	1989–1989
Davis v. Alaska green scotus · 1974 2 sentences 1986Our search for the Sixth Amendment threshold must begin with the most significant case in this area, Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), in which the Supreme Court reversed a burglary conviction because of excessive interference with the defendant’s right of cross-examination. 1986Our search for the Sixth Amendment threshold must begin with the most significant case in this area, Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), in which the Supreme Court reversed a burglary conviction because of excessive interference with the defendant’s right of cross-examination.	1	1986–1986
State v. Mitchell green tenn · 1980 2 sentences 1983App.3d 136 , 40 Ill.Dec. 895 , 407 N.E.2d 126 (1980); State v. Mitchell, Tenn., 593 S.W.2d 280 , cert. denied 449 U.S. 845 , 101 S.Ct. 128 , 66 L.Ed.2d 53 (1980); People v. Samuels, 49 N.Y.2d 218 , 424 N.Y.S.2d 892 , 400 N.E.2d 1344 (1980). [9] State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant 1983App.3d 136 , 40 Ill.Dec. 895 , 407 N.E.2d 126 (1980); State v. Mitchell, Tenn., 593 S.W.2d 280 , cert. denied 449 U.S. 845 , 101 S.Ct. 128 , 66 L.Ed.2d 53 (1980); People v. Samuels, 49 N.Y.2d 218 , 424 N.Y.S.2d 892 , 400 N.E.2d 1344 (1980). [9] State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant	1	1983–1983
State v. Ruth green idaho · 1981 2 sentences 1983State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant does not constitute the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings); State v. Fitzsimmons, 93 Wash.2d 436 , 610 P.2d 893 (1980), on remand from United States Supreme Court, 94 Wash.2d 858 , 620 P.2d 999 (1980) (a criminal defendant’s Sixth Am 1983State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant does not constitute the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings); State v. Fitzsimmons, 93 Wash.2d 436 , 610 P.2d 893 (1980), on remand from United States Supreme Court, 94 Wash.2d 858 , 620 P.2d 999 (1980) (a criminal defendant’s Sixth Am	1	1983–1983
State v. Fitzsimmons green wash · 1980 2 sentences 1983State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant does not constitute the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings); State v. Fitzsimmons, 93 Wash.2d 436 , 610 P.2d 893 (1980), on remand from United States Supreme Court, 94 Wash.2d 858 , 620 P.2d 999 (1980) (a criminal defendant’s Sixth Am 1983State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant does not constitute the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings); State v. Fitzsimmons, 93 Wash.2d 436 , 610 P.2d 893 (1980), on remand from United States Supreme Court, 94 Wash.2d 858 , 620 P.2d 999 (1980) (a criminal defendant’s Sixth Am	1	1983–1983
State v. Irving green kan · 1982 2 sentences 1983State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant does not constitute the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings); State v. Fitzsimmons, 93 Wash.2d 436 , 610 P.2d 893 (1980), on remand from United States Supreme Court, 94 Wash.2d 858 , 620 P.2d 999 (1980) (a criminal defendant’s Sixth Am 1983State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant does not constitute the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings); State v. Fitzsimmons, 93 Wash.2d 436 , 610 P.2d 893 (1980), on remand from United States Supreme Court, 94 Wash.2d 858 , 620 P.2d 999 (1980) (a criminal defendant’s Sixth Am	1	1983–1983
State v. Masaniai green haw · 1981 2 sentences 1983State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant does not constitute the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings); State v. Fitzsimmons, 93 Wash.2d 436 , 610 P.2d 893 (1980), on remand from United States Supreme Court, 94 Wash.2d 858 , 620 P.2d 999 (1980) (a criminal defendant’s Sixth Am 1983State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant does not constitute the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings); State v. Fitzsimmons, 93 Wash.2d 436 , 610 P.2d 893 (1980), on remand from United States Supreme Court, 94 Wash.2d 858 , 620 P.2d 999 (1980) (a criminal defendant’s Sixth Am	1	1983–1983
State v. Fitzsimmons green wash · 1980	1	1983–1983
People v. Faulkner green illappct · 1980 2 sentences 1983App.3d 136 , 40 Ill.Dec. 895 , 407 N.E.2d 126 (1980); State v. Mitchell, Tenn., 593 S.W.2d 280 , cert. denied 449 U.S. 845 , 101 S.Ct. 128 , 66 L.Ed.2d 53 (1980); People v. Samuels, 49 N.Y.2d 218 , 424 N.Y.S.2d 892 , 400 N.E.2d 1344 (1980). [9] State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant 1983App.3d 136 , 40 Ill.Dec. 895 , 407 N.E.2d 126 (1980); State v. Mitchell, Tenn., 593 S.W.2d 280 , cert. denied 449 U.S. 845 , 101 S.Ct. 128 , 66 L.Ed.2d 53 (1980); People v. Samuels, 49 N.Y.2d 218 , 424 N.Y.S.2d 892 , 400 N.E.2d 1344 (1980). [9] State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant	1	1983–1983
Hudson v. Maryland green scotus · 1980	1	1983–1983
Brown v. Mitchell green scotus · 1980 2 sentences 1983App.3d 136 , 40 Ill.Dec. 895 , 407 N.E.2d 126 (1980); State v. Mitchell, Tenn., 593 S.W.2d 280 , cert. denied 449 U.S. 845 , 101 S.Ct. 128 , 66 L.Ed.2d 53 (1980); People v. Samuels, 49 N.Y.2d 218 , 424 N.Y.S.2d 892 , 400 N.E.2d 1344 (1980). [9] State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant 1983App.3d 136 , 40 Ill.Dec. 895 , 407 N.E.2d 126 (1980); State v. Mitchell, Tenn., 593 S.W.2d 280 , cert. denied 449 U.S. 845 , 101 S.Ct. 128 , 66 L.Ed.2d 53 (1980); People v. Samuels, 49 N.Y.2d 218 , 424 N.Y.S.2d 892 , 400 N.E.2d 1344 (1980). [9] State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant	1	1983–1983
Annicaro v. Florida green scotus · 1980 2 sentences 1983App.3d 136 , 40 Ill.Dec. 895 , 407 N.E.2d 126 (1980); State v. Mitchell, Tenn., 593 S.W.2d 280 , cert. denied 449 U.S. 845 , 101 S.Ct. 128 , 66 L.Ed.2d 53 (1980); People v. Samuels, 49 N.Y.2d 218 , 424 N.Y.S.2d 892 , 400 N.E.2d 1344 (1980). [9] State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant 1983App.3d 136 , 40 Ill.Dec. 895 , 407 N.E.2d 126 (1980); State v. Mitchell, Tenn., 593 S.W.2d 280 , cert. denied 449 U.S. 845 , 101 S.Ct. 128 , 66 L.Ed.2d 53 (1980); People v. Samuels, 49 N.Y.2d 218 , 424 N.Y.S.2d 892 , 400 N.E.2d 1344 (1980). [9] State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant	1	1983–1983
People v. Samuels green ny · 1980 2 sentences 1983App.3d 136 , 40 Ill.Dec. 895 , 407 N.E.2d 126 (1980); State v. Mitchell, Tenn., 593 S.W.2d 280 , cert. denied 449 U.S. 845 , 101 S.Ct. 128 , 66 L.Ed.2d 53 (1980); People v. Samuels, 49 N.Y.2d 218 , 424 N.Y.S.2d 892 , 400 N.E.2d 1344 (1980). [9] State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant 1983App.3d 136 , 40 Ill.Dec. 895 , 407 N.E.2d 126 (1980); State v. Mitchell, Tenn., 593 S.W.2d 280 , cert. denied 449 U.S. 845 , 101 S.Ct. 128 , 66 L.Ed.2d 53 (1980); People v. Samuels, 49 N.Y.2d 218 , 424 N.Y.S.2d 892 , 400 N.E.2d 1344 (1980). [9] State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258 , 644 P.2d 389 (1982) (taped conversation prior to adversary judicial proceedings not a Sixth Amendment violation); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981) (accused entitled to counsel from initial appearance on); State v. Masaniai, 63 Hawaii 354 , 628 P.2d 1018 (1981) (issuance and execution of an arrest warrant	1	1983–1983

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WY § Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-401 (3)

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

CA 476 (1968–2026) TX 433 (1980–2026) OH 199 (1977–2026) WA 155 (1975–2026) PA 149 (1971–2026) MI 147 (1976–2025) GA 138 (1979–2026) TN 131 (1981–2026) IL 115 (1975–2026) IN 108 (1978–2026) AZ 99 (1971–2026) DC 98 (1978–2026) FL 89 (1982–2026) IA 76 (1980–2025) NJ 71 (1977–2025) MD 65 (1971–2026) NC 65 (1980–2025) DE 64 (1976–2026) OR 61 (1974–2026) AL 59 (1981–2024) CO 51 (1981–2025) WI 51 (1980–2025) VA 51 (1983–2026) CT 49 (1982–2026) MA 46 (1974–2025) MO 46 (1973–2025) KS 45 (1990–2026) NY 44 (1972–2026) MS 44 (1982–2020) LA 38 (1983–2025) MN 36 (1984–2026) NM 36 (1982–2025) UT 36 (1983–2026) OK 29 (1977–2022) ID 29 (1979–2026) KY 24 (1972–2026) ME 22 (1973–2023) MT 20 (1975–2026) WV 18 (1981–2024) RI 18 (1979–2018) NE 18 (1982–2022) SD 15 (1969–2026) HI 15 (1981–2024) NV 14 (1982–2023) AR 13 (1988–2026) WY 13 (1983–2025) SC 12 (1975–2019) AK 10 (1979–2024) ND 10 (2003–2021) VT 10 (1979–2024) VI 7 (2002–2026) GU 4 (1978–2025) NH 2 (1991–2012)

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