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 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee 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 |
|---|---|---|
Montejo v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2020The United States Supreme Court, however, has stated that “when a defendant is read his Miranda rights (which include the right to have counsel present during interrogation) and agrees to waive those rights, that typically does the trick, even though the Miranda rights purportedly have their source in the Fifth Amendment.” Montejo, 556 U.S. at 786 (emphasis in original). “[D]octrines ensuring voluntariness of the Fifth Amendment waiver simultaneously ensure the voluntariness of the Sixth Amendment waiver.” Id. at 795 . 2020The United States Supreme Court, however, has stated that “when a defendant is read his Miranda rights (which include the right to have counsel present during interrogation) and agrees to waive those rights, that typically does the trick, even though the Miranda rights purportedly have their source in the Fifth Amendment.” Montejo, 556 U.S. at 786 (emphasis in original). “[D]octrines ensuring voluntariness of the Fifth Amendment waiver simultaneously ensure the voluntariness of the Sixth Amendment waiver.” Id. at 795 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mickensgreen1 sentence2014State v. Mickens, 123 S.W.3d 355, 383 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blackstockgreen1 sentence2013Miranda’s prophylactic safeguards “must include warnings prior to any custodial questioning that an accused has the right to remain silent, that any statement he makes may be used against him, and that he has the right to an attorney.” State v. Blackstock, 19 S.W.3d 200, 207 (Tenn. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sensinggreen1 sentence2000See Sensing, 843 S.W.2d 412 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Parkergreen1 sentence1997See, e.g., State v. Parker, 887 S.W.2d 825, 828 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (where the defendant was charged with aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery on the basis that the victim was twelve years old, and the defendant adduced proof that he had thought the victim was older, the trial court was correct in instructing the jury on mistake of fact and directing it to consider the offense of statutory rape if it found the defendant entitled to that defense). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Martin
green
1 sentence2000Martin, 950 S.W.2d at 21 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Roberts
green
1 sentence1999In support of his argument the defendant relies upon the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals in State v. Roberts, 943 S.W.2d 403 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Dyle
green
2 sentences1998In support of his claim, he relies upon this Court’s decision in State v. Dyle, 899 S.W.2d 607 (Tenn.1995), rendered after the trial of this case. 1998In support of his claim, he relies upon this Court's decision in State v. Dyle, 899 S.W.2d 607 (Tenn. 1995), rendered after the trial of this case. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.