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 Virginia opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2024 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Avent v. Com.green2 sentences2024“For purposes of a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination challenge, ‘[v]oluntariness is a question of law, subject to independent appellate review.’” Secret v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204 , 225 (2018) (alteration in original) (quoting Avent v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 175, 195 (2010)). 2024In the context of “a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination challenge, ‘[v]oluntariness is a question of law, subject to independent appellate review.’” Secret v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204 , 225 (2018) (alteration in original) (quoting Avent v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 175, 195 (2010)). | 8 | 9 |
Rodriguez v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2024But this Court is “bound by the trial court’s subsidiary factual findings unless those findings are plainly wrong.” Robinson v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 302, 310 (2014) (quoting Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 144, 156 (2003)).3 “The test for determining voluntariness is whether the statement was the ‘product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.’” Secret, 296 Va. at 226 (quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225 (1973)). | 1 | 1 |
Schneckloth v. Bustamontegreen1 sentence2024But this Court is “bound by the trial court’s subsidiary factual findings unless those findings are plainly wrong.” Robinson v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 302, 310 (2014) (quoting Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 144, 156 (2003)).3 “The test for determining voluntariness is whether the statement was the ‘product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.’” Secret, 296 Va. at 226 (quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225 (1973)). | 1 | 1 |
Larod Nayquan Robinson v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen1 sentence2024But this Court is “bound by the trial court’s subsidiary factual findings unless those findings are plainly wrong.” Robinson v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 302, 310 (2014) (quoting Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 144, 156 (2003)).3 “The test for determining voluntariness is whether the statement was the ‘product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.’” Secret, 296 Va. at 226 (quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225 (1973)). | 1 | 1 |
Minnesota v. Murphygreen1 sentence2001See, 465 U.S. at 440 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Midkiff v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2018For purposes of a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination challenge, "[v]oluntariness is a question of law, subject to independent appellate review." Avent v. Commonwealth , 279 Va. 175 , 195, 688 S.E.2d 244 (2010) (quoting Midkiff v. Commonwealth , 250 Va. 262 , 268-69, 462 S.E.2d 112 (1995) ). 2018For purposes of a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination challenge, "[v]oluntariness is a question of law, subject to independent appellate review." Avent v. Commonwealth , 279 Va. 175 , 195, 688 S.E.2d 244 (2010) (quoting Midkiff v. Commonwealth , 250 Va. 262 , 268-69, 462 S.E.2d 112 (1995) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.