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.
10 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oregon v. Elstadgreen2 sentences2005The United States Supreme Court held in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) that the admissibility of a voluntary statement given after a statement has been given without the benefit of Miranda warnings turns solely on whether it is knowingly and voluntarily made. 2005The United States Supreme Court held in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) that the admissibility of a voluntary statement given after a statement has been given without the benefit of Miranda warnings turns solely on whether it is knowingly and voluntarily made. | 2 | 3 |
McCambridge v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., McCambridge v. State, 712 S.W.2d 499 , 504–05 (Tex. Crim. 2001E.g., McCambridge v. State, 712 S.W.2d 499, 504-05 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); DeLeon v. State, 758 S.W.2d 621, 624-25 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
DeLeon v. Stategreen2 sentences2001E.g., McCambridge v. State, 712 S.W.2d 499, 504-05 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); DeLeon v. State, 758 S.W.2d 621, 624-25 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, no pet.). 2001E.g., McCambridge v. State, 712 S.W.2d 499, 504-05 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); DeLeon v. State, 758 S.W.2d 621, 624-25 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCarter v. State
green
2 sentences2006Rhoades, 934 S.W.2d at 119; McCarter, 837 S.W.2d at 121-22 . 2006Rhoades, 934 S.W.2d at 119; McCarter, 837 S.W.2d at 121-22 . | 2 | 2005–2006 |
Missouri v. Seibert
green
1 sentence2020Siebert requested the trial court make findings of fact and conclusions of law “related to the following”: the credibility of each trial witness; –13– whether the post-warning custodial interrogation was substantively similar to the subsequent post-warning custodial interrogation; whether Ms. Siebert’s circumstances at the scene when being questioned were substantially similar to her circumstances at the police station during her second custodial interrogation; whether any officers at the scene should have realized Miranda warnings were required; whether the extensive questioning of | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Furr v. State
green
1 sentence2018A. Standard of review We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress using the bifurcated standard set forth in Furr v. State, 499 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Harris v. New York
green
2 sentences1995Specifically, in Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 225-26 , 91 S.Ct. 643, 645-46 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971), the Court concluded that statements solicited without the benefit of Miranda warnings, are admissible if used for the purpose of impeaching the defendant’s testimony at trial. 1995Specifically, in Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 225-26 , 91 S.Ct. 643, 645-46 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971), the Court concluded that statements solicited without the benefit of Miranda warnings, are admissible if used for the purpose of impeaching the defendant’s testimony at trial. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.