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.
8 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Widemangreen2 sentences1987Whether “the carry-over effect” (State v. Ruybal, 398 A.2d 407, 412 (Me.1979)) of the Miranda warning Birmingham received at the beginning of the questioning obviated any subsequent need for renewed Miranda warnings is governed by the five-part test set forth in State v. Myers, 345 A.2d at 502 (quoting Commonwealth v. Wideman, 460 Pa. 699, 707 , 334 A.2d 594, 598 (1975)): (1) the time lapse between the last Miranda warnings and the accused’s statements; (2) interruptions in the continuity of the interrogation; *762 (3) whether there was a change of location between the place where the last Mir 1987Whether “the carry-over effect” (State v. Ruybal, 398 A.2d 407, 412 (Me.1979)) of the Miranda warning Birmingham received at the beginning of the questioning obviated any subsequent need for renewed Miranda warnings is governed by the five-part test set forth in State v. Myers, 345 A.2d at 502 (quoting Commonwealth v. Wideman, 460 Pa. 699, 707 , 334 A.2d 594, 598 (1975)): (1) the time lapse between the last Miranda warnings and the accused’s statements; (2) interruptions in the continuity of the interrogation; *762 (3) whether there was a change of location between the place where the last Mir | 3 | 3 |
State v. Myersgreen2 sentences1987Whether “the carry-over effect” (State v. Ruybal, 398 A.2d 407, 412 (Me.1979)) of the Miranda warning Birmingham received at the beginning of the questioning obviated any subsequent need for renewed Miranda warnings is governed by the five-part test set forth in State v. Myers, 345 A.2d at 502 (quoting Commonwealth v. Wideman, 460 Pa. 699, 707 , 334 A.2d 594, 598 (1975)): (1) the time lapse between the last Miranda warnings and the accused’s statements; (2) interruptions in the continuity of the interrogation; *762 (3) whether there was a change of location between the place where the last Mir 1984Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983) (effective assistance of counsel at trial); Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 , 103 S.Ct. 3308 , 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983) (appeal); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932) (arraignment and thereafter). . (1) the time lapse between the last Miranda warnings and the accused’s statement; (2) interruptions in the continuity of the interrogation; (3) whether there was a change of location between the place where the last Miranda warnings were given and the place where the accused's statement was made; (4) whet | 2 | 6 |
State v. Drakegreen2 sentences2018State v. Myers , 345 A.2d 500 , 502 (Me. 1975) ; see State v. Drake , 1999 ME 91 , ¶ 4, 731 A.2d 858 . [¶ 42] Hopkins's contention that Miranda warnings should have been reread during the second interview with the deputy, the videotaped walk-though interview with the detective, and the interview conducted with the detective in his police cruiser, is unavailing. 2018State v. Myers , 345 A.2d 500 , 502 (Me. 1975) ; see State v. Drake , 1999 ME 91 , ¶ 4, 731 A.2d 858 . [¶ 42] Hopkins's contention that Miranda warnings should have been reread during the second interview with the deputy, the videotaped walk-though interview with the detective, and the interview conducted with the detective in his police cruiser, is unavailing. | 2 | 2 |
William Lee Miller v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1984Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983) (effective assistance of counsel at trial); Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 , 103 S.Ct. 3308 , 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983) (appeal); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932) (arraignment and thereafter). . (1) the time lapse between the last Miranda warnings and the accused’s statement; (2) interruptions in the continuity of the interrogation; (3) whether there was a change of location between the place where the last Miranda warnings were given and the place where the accused's statement was made; (4) whet 1979Finally, we enumerated five factors to be considered in evaluating the carry-over effect of Miranda warnings given prior to an interruption in the interrogation process: “(1) the time lapse between the last Miranda warnings and the accused’s statements; “(2) interruptions in the continuity of the interrogation; “(3) whether there was a change of location between the place where the last Miranda warnings were given and the place where- the accused’s statement was made; “(4) whether the same officer who gave the warnings also conducted the interrogation resulting in the accused’s statement; and | 1 | 3 |
State v. Ruybalgreen1 sentence1987Whether “the carry-over effect” (State v. Ruybal, 398 A.2d 407, 412 (Me.1979)) of the Miranda warning Birmingham received at the beginning of the questioning obviated any subsequent need for renewed Miranda warnings is governed by the five-part test set forth in State v. Myers, 345 A.2d at 502 (quoting Commonwealth v. Wideman, 460 Pa. 699, 707 , 334 A.2d 594, 598 (1975)): (1) the time lapse between the last Miranda warnings and the accused’s statements; (2) interruptions in the continuity of the interrogation; *762 (3) whether there was a change of location between the place where the last Mir | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Barnes
green
2 sentences1984Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983) (effective assistance of counsel at trial); Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 , 103 S.Ct. 3308 , 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983) (appeal); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932) (arraignment and thereafter). . (1) the time lapse between the last Miranda warnings and the accused’s statement; (2) interruptions in the continuity of the interrogation; (3) whether there was a change of location between the place where the last Miranda warnings were given and the place where the accused's statement was made; (4) whet 1984Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983) (effective assistance of counsel at trial); Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 , 103 S.Ct. 3308 , 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983) (appeal); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932) (arraignment and thereafter). . (1) the time lapse between the last Miranda warnings and the accused’s statement; (2) interruptions in the continuity of the interrogation; (3) whether there was a change of location between the place where the last Miranda warnings were given and the place where the accused's statement was made; (4) whet | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Morris v. Slappy
green
2 sentences1984Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983) (effective assistance of counsel at trial); Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 , 103 S.Ct. 3308 , 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983) (appeal); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932) (arraignment and thereafter). . (1) the time lapse between the last Miranda warnings and the accused’s statement; (2) interruptions in the continuity of the interrogation; (3) whether there was a change of location between the place where the last Miranda warnings were given and the place where the accused's statement was made; (4) whet 1984Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983) (effective assistance of counsel at trial); Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 , 103 S.Ct. 3308 , 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983) (appeal); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932) (arraignment and thereafter). . (1) the time lapse between the last Miranda warnings and the accused’s statement; (2) interruptions in the continuity of the interrogation; (3) whether there was a change of location between the place where the last Miranda warnings were given and the place where the accused's statement was made; (4) whet | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Powell v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1984Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983) (effective assistance of counsel at trial); Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 , 103 S.Ct. 3308 , 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983) (appeal); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932) (arraignment and thereafter). . (1) the time lapse between the last Miranda warnings and the accused’s statement; (2) interruptions in the continuity of the interrogation; (3) whether there was a change of location between the place where the last Miranda warnings were given and the place where the accused's statement was made; (4) whet 1984Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983) (effective assistance of counsel at trial); Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 , 103 S.Ct. 3308 , 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983) (appeal); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932) (arraignment and thereafter). . (1) the time lapse between the last Miranda warnings and the accused’s statement; (2) interruptions in the continuity of the interrogation; (3) whether there was a change of location between the place where the last Miranda warnings were given and the place where the accused's statement was made; (4) whet | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Harris v. New York
green
2 sentences1975Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 , 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1971). (5) Where “Miranda” warnings are not repeated during an ongoing interrogation the ultimate question is, did the defendant with full knowledge of his legal rights knowingly and intentionally relinquish them? 1975Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 , 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1971). (5) Where “Miranda” warnings are not repeated during an ongoing interrogation the ultimate question is, did the defendant with full knowledge of his legal rights knowingly and intentionally relinquish them? | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.