8 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Glover v. Stategreen2 sentences2012As our Supreme Court pointed out in Glover v. State, 836 N.E.2d 414, 417-18 (Ind. 2005), Indiana does not recognize that form of privilege. 2007Id. | 1 | 2 |
Pettiford v. Stategreen1 sentence1998“Although a person’s mental condition is relevant to the issue of susceptibility to police coercion, where the person voluntarily makes a confession without police coercion the confession may be considered in spite of the mental condition.” Pettiford v. State, 619 N.E.2d 925, 928 (Ind. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Colorado v. Connelly
green
2 sentences1998Indeed, in Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986), the United States Supreme Court said that the purpose of the Fifth Amendment’s testimonial privilege against self-incrimination and the requirements of Miranda are to protect against police misconduct. 1998Indeed, in Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986), the United States Supreme Court said that the purpose of the Fifth Amendment’s testimonial privilege against self-incrimination and the requirements of Miranda are to protect against police misconduct. | 2 | 1994–1998 |
Namet v. United States
green
2 sentences2015The Court considered whether the Government made “a conscious and flagrant attempt to build its case out of inferences arising from use of the testimonial privilege” and whether “inferences from a witness’ refusal to answer added critical weight to the prosecution’s case in a form not subject to cross-examination, and thus unfairly prejudiced the defendant.” Namet, 373 U.S. at 186-87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1154-55 . 3 Here too, the police officers presumably have relevant information on the investigation not subject to their assertion of their Fifth Amendment right. 2015The Court considered whether the Government made “a conscious and flagrant attempt to build its case out of inferences arising from use of the testimonial privilege” and whether “inferences from a witness’ refusal to answer added critical weight to the prosecution’s case in a form not subject to cross-examination, and thus unfairly prejudiced the defendant.” Namet, 373 U.S. at 186-87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1154-55 . 3 Here too, the police officers presumably have relevant information on the investigation not subject to their assertion of their Fifth Amendment right. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Hawkins v. United States
green
2 sentences2005Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 77 , 79 S.Ct. 136 , 3 L.Ed.2d 125 (1958); 8 Wigmore, supra, § 2228. 2005Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 77 , 79 S.Ct. 136 , 3 L.Ed.2d 125 (1958); 8 Wigmore, supra, § 2228. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Branzburg v. Hayes
green
2 sentences1997The Supreme Court rejected this argument, and held that the First Amendment does not grant to news-persons a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy, and that “the Constitution does not, as it never has, exempt the newsman from performing the citizen’s normal duty of appearing and furnishing information relevant to the grand jury’s task.” Id. at 690-91 , 92 S.Ct. at 2661-62 . 1997The Supreme Court rejected this argument, and held that the First Amendment does not grant to news-persons a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy, and that “the Constitution does not, as it never has, exempt the newsman from performing the citizen’s normal duty of appearing and furnishing information relevant to the grand jury’s task.” Id. at 690-91 , 92 S.Ct. at 2661-62 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
McCray v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1991The general rule was discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court in McCray v. Illinois (1967), 386 U.S. 300 , 87 S.Ct. 1056 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 , reh. denied, 386 U.S. 1042 , 87 S.Ct. 1474 , 18 L.Ed.2d 616 , wherein the Court approved Professor Wigmore’s description of the testimonial privilege of informants as well established and unquestionably sound. 87 S.Ct. at 1061 . 1 In Dole v. Local 1942, et al. (1989 7th Cir.), 870 F.2d 368 , the Seventh Circuit described the underlying concern of the rule as “the common-sense notion that individuals who offer their assistance to a government investigation may la 1991The general rule was discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court in McCray v. Illinois (1967), 386 U.S. 300 , 87 S.Ct. 1056 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 , reh. denied, 386 U.S. 1042 , 87 S.Ct. 1474 , 18 L.Ed.2d 616 , wherein the Court approved Professor Wigmore’s description of the testimonial privilege of informants as well established and unquestionably sound. 87 S.Ct. at 1061 . 1 In Dole v. Local 1942, et al. (1989 7th Cir.), 870 F.2d 368 , the Seventh Circuit described the underlying concern of the rule as “the common-sense notion that individuals who offer their assistance to a government investigation may la | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Local 1942, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Afl-Cio
green
2 sentences1991The general rule was discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court in McCray v. Illinois (1967), 386 U.S. 300 , 87 S.Ct. 1056 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 , reh. denied, 386 U.S. 1042 , 87 S.Ct. 1474 , 18 L.Ed.2d 616 , wherein the Court approved Professor Wigmore’s description of the testimonial privilege of informants as well established and unquestionably sound. 87 S.Ct. at 1061 . 1 In Dole v. Local 1942, et al. (1989 7th Cir.), 870 F.2d 368 , the Seventh Circuit described the underlying concern of the rule as “the common-sense notion that individuals who offer their assistance to a government investigation may la 1991The general rule was discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court in McCray v. Illinois (1967), 386 U.S. 300 , 87 S.Ct. 1056 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 , reh. denied, 386 U.S. 1042 , 87 S.Ct. 1474 , 18 L.Ed.2d 616 , wherein the Court approved Professor Wigmore’s description of the testimonial privilege of informants as well established and unquestionably sound. 87 S.Ct. at 1061 . 1 In Dole v. Local 1942, et al. (1989 7th Cir.), 870 F.2d 368 , the Seventh Circuit described the underlying concern of the rule as “the common-sense notion that individuals who offer their assistance to a government investigation may la | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Brown v. General Motors Corp.
green
1 sentence1991The general rule was discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court in McCray v. Illinois (1967), 386 U.S. 300 , 87 S.Ct. 1056 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 , reh. denied, 386 U.S. 1042 , 87 S.Ct. 1474 , 18 L.Ed.2d 616 , wherein the Court approved Professor Wigmore’s description of the testimonial privilege of informants as well established and unquestionably sound. 87 S.Ct. at 1061 . 1 In Dole v. Local 1942, et al. (1989 7th Cir.), 870 F.2d 368 , the Seventh Circuit described the underlying concern of the rule as “the common-sense notion that individuals who offer their assistance to a government investigation may la | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Louie v. Washington
green
1 sentence1991The general rule was discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court in McCray v. Illinois (1967), 386 U.S. 300 , 87 S.Ct. 1056 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 , reh. denied, 386 U.S. 1042 , 87 S.Ct. 1474 , 18 L.Ed.2d 616 , wherein the Court approved Professor Wigmore’s description of the testimonial privilege of informants as well established and unquestionably sound. 87 S.Ct. at 1061 . 1 In Dole v. Local 1942, et al. (1989 7th Cir.), 870 F.2d 368 , the Seventh Circuit described the underlying concern of the rule as “the common-sense notion that individuals who offer their assistance to a government investigation may la | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.