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.
9 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Wernergreen2 sentences2019"With regard to the first three Griffin factors, the affirmative presence of one or more of them during questioning 'would tend to mitigate the existence of custody at the time of questioning.'" Id. (quoting Griffin, 922 F.2d at 1349 ). 2008In Werner , the Missouri Supreme Court set out the Griffin analysis and the six indicia of custody fisted therein. 9 S.W.3d at 595-96 . | 3 | 4 |
United States v. Leonard David Griffingreen2 sentences2019"With regard to the first three Griffin factors, the affirmative presence of one or more of them during questioning 'would tend to mitigate the existence of custody at the time of questioning.'" Id. (quoting Griffin, 922 F.2d at 1349 ). 2000With regard to the first three Griffin factors, the affirmative presence of one or more of them during questioning “would tend to mitigate the existence of custody at the time of questioning.” Id. | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Michael Edward Lebrungreen2 sentences2011In United States v. LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1145 , 125 S.Ct. 1292 , 161 L.Ed.2d 105 (2005), the Eighth Circuit analyzed the question of whether a person was “in custody” without citing Griffin or listing the Griffin factors. 2011In United States v. LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1145 , 125 S.Ct. 1292 , 161 L.Ed.2d 105 (2005), the Eighth Circuit analyzed the question of whether a person was “in custody” without citing Griffin or listing the Griffin factors. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Michael S. Czichraygreen2 sentences2011Also, in another case decided the same year, United States v. Czichray, 378 F.3d 822, 827-28 (8th Cir.2004), the court said of its own Griffin decision: There is no requirement ... that the Griffin analysis be followed ritualistically.... 2011Also, in another case decided the same year, United States v. Czichray, 378 F.3d 822, 827-28 (8th Cir.2004), the court said of its own Griffin decision: There is no requirement ... that the Griffin analysis be followed ritualistically.... | 1 | 2 |
State v. Griffingreen2 sentences2016As determined by the Missouri Supreme Court in State v. Griffin, pre-indictment delay only requires the dismissal of charges when it is demonstrated, (1) the defendant was prejudiced by the delay; and (2) the State intended the delay to gain a tactical advantage over the defendant (“the Griffin test”). 848 S.W.2d 464, 467 (Mo. banc 1993). 2016As determined by the Missouri Supreme Court in State v. Griffin, pre-indictment delay only requires the dismissal of charges when it is demonstrated, (1) the defendant was prejudiced by the delay; and (2) the State intended the delay to gain a tactical advantage over the defendant (“the Griffin test”). 848 S.W.2d 464, 467 (Mo. banc 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kleinegreen2 sentences2016State v. Kleine, 330 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011); State v. Lee, 859 S.W.2d 768, 769-71 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). 2016State v. Kleine, 330 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011); State v. Lee, 859 S.W.2d 768, 769-71 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wohlgemuthgreen2 sentences2016State v. Kleine, 330 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011); State v. Lee, 859 S.W.2d 768, 769-71 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). 2016State v. Kleine, 330 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011); State v. Lee, 859 S.W.2d 768, 769-71 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2011See Hill, 247 S.W.3d at 46 . 2011See Hill, 247 S.W.3d at 46 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Allisongreen1 sentence1993State v. Allison, 845 S.W.2d 642, 645 (Mo.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dewaal v. Alston
green
2 sentences2011In United States v. LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1145 , 125 S.Ct. 1292 , 161 L.Ed.2d 105 (2005), the Eighth Circuit analyzed the question of whether a person was “in custody” without citing Griffin or listing the Griffin factors. 2011In United States v. LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1145 , 125 S.Ct. 1292 , 161 L.Ed.2d 105 (2005), the Eighth Circuit analyzed the question of whether a person was “in custody” without citing Griffin or listing the Griffin factors. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Barber Foods, Inc., Dba Barber Foods v. Tum
green
2 sentences2011In United States v. LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1145 , 125 S.Ct. 1292 , 161 L.Ed.2d 105 (2005), the Eighth Circuit analyzed the question of whether a person was “in custody” without citing Griffin or listing the Griffin factors. 2011In United States v. LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1145 , 125 S.Ct. 1292 , 161 L.Ed.2d 105 (2005), the Eighth Circuit analyzed the question of whether a person was “in custody” without citing Griffin or listing the Griffin factors. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Kyles v. Whitley
green
2 sentences2011To establish "prejudice," Griffin must demonstrate that the newly discovered evidence resulted in a verdict not "worthy of confidence." Engel, 304 S.W.3d at 129 (citing Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995)). 2011To establish "prejudice," Griffin must demonstrate that the newly discovered evidence resulted in a verdict not "worthy of confidence." Engel, 304 S.W.3d at 129 (citing Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State Ex Rel. Engel v. Dormire
green
2 sentences2011To establish "prejudice," Griffin must demonstrate that the newly discovered evidence resulted in a verdict not "worthy of confidence." Engel, 304 S.W.3d at 129 (citing Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995)). 2011To establish “prejudice,” Griffin must demonstrate that the newly discovered evidence resulted in a verdict not “worthy of confidence.” Engel, 304 S.W.3d at 129 (citing Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Biehl v. Commissioner
green
2 sentences2011In United States v. LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1145 , 125 S.Ct. 1292 , 161 L.Ed.2d 105 (2005), the Eighth Circuit analyzed the question of whether a person was “in custody” without citing Griffin or listing the Griffin factors. 2011In United States v. LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1145 , 125 S.Ct. 1292 , 161 L.Ed.2d 105 (2005), the Eighth Circuit analyzed the question of whether a person was “in custody” without citing Griffin or listing the Griffin factors. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
California v. Beheler
green
2 sentences2008Instead it held: The “ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 , 103 S.Ct. 3517 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) (per curiam) (internal marks omitted). 2008Instead it held: The “ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 , 103 S.Ct. 3517 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) (per curiam) (internal marks omitted). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2006The first issue raised by Mr. Griffin’s claim is whether L.G.’s hearsay statements were “testimonial.” In Crawford , the United States Supreme Court chose not to “spell out a comprehensive definition of ‘testimonial.’ ” 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . 2006The first issue raised by Mr. Griffin’s claim is whether L.G.’s hearsay statements were “testimonial.” In Crawford , the United States Supreme Court chose not to “spell out a comprehensive definition of ‘testimonial.’ ” 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.