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 1 courts 1996–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Moran v. Burbinegreen2 sentences2022The waiver inquiry “has two distinct dimensions”: waiver must be “voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception,” and “made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.” Berghuis, 560 U.S. at 382 -83 (quoting Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986)); see also Climer, 400 S.W.3d at 564-65. 2022The waiver inquiry “has two distinct dimensions”: waiver must be “voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception,” and “made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.” Berghuis, 560 U.S. at 382 -83 (quoting Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986)); see also Climer, 400 S.W.3d at 564-65 . | 4 | 4 |
State of Tennessee v. David Hooper Climer, Jr.green2 sentences2022Although the State need not “show that a waiver of Miranda rights was express,” the giving of an uncoerced statement following the provision of Miranda warnings, “standing alone, is insufficient to -4- demonstrate ‘a valid waiver.’” Climer, 400 S.W.3d at 564 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475 ). 2019Although the State need not “show that a waiver of Miranda rights was express,” the giving of an uncoerced statement following the provision of Miranda warnings, “standing alone, is insufficient to demonstrate ‘a valid waiver.’” Climer, 400 S.W.3d at 564 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475 ). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Phillipsgreen2 sentences2005In Phillips, this Court found that the line of questions employed by the investigators impermissibly “crossed the line” based on the presence in the record of “(1) misrepresentations by an investigator; (2) numerous steadfast denials by the defendant; (3) statements that law enforcement officials would be involved if defendant did not confess; and (4) promises of treatment for the defendant [who faced charges of sexual misconduct] and his stepdaughter only if he fully confessed.” Phillips, 30 S.W.3d at 377 . -8- First, we note that the defendant in Phillips, unlike the case sub judice, was in 2005See id. at 376 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2005See Smith, 933 S.W.2d at 454 ; Phillips, 30 S.W.3d at 376 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burtisgreen1 sentence2000See also Carter, 16 S.W.3d at 766 ; Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d at 674-675 ; State v. Burtis, 664 S.W.2d 305, 308-309 (Tenn.Crim.App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen1 sentence2000See also Carter, 16 S.W.3d at 766 ; Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d at 674-675 ; State v. Burtis, 664 S.W.2d 305, 308-309 (Tenn.Crim.App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Berghuis v. Thompkins
green
2 sentences2022The waiver inquiry “has two distinct dimensions”: waiver must be “voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception,” and “made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.” Berghuis, 560 U.S. at 382 -83 (quoting Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986)); see also Climer, 400 S.W.3d at 564-65 . 2019Although the State need not “show that a waiver of Miranda rights was express,” the giving of an uncoerced statement following the provision of Miranda warnings, “standing alone, is insufficient to demonstrate ‘a valid waiver.’” Id. (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475 ). | 4 | 2019–2022 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2022Although the State need not “show that a waiver of Miranda rights was express,” the giving of an uncoerced statement following the provision of Miranda warnings, “standing alone, is insufficient to -4- demonstrate ‘a valid waiver.’” Climer, 400 S.W.3d at 564 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475 ). 2019Although the State need not “show that a waiver of Miranda rights was express,” the giving of an uncoerced statement following the provision of Miranda warnings, “standing alone, is insufficient to demonstrate ‘a valid waiver.’” Id. (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475 ). | 3 | 2019–2022 |
State v. Huddleston
green
1 sentence2000See also Carter, 16 S.W.3d at 766 ; Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d at 674-675 ; State v. Burtis, 664 S.W.2d 305, 308-309 (Tenn.Crim.App.1983). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Brown v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2000In Brown, 422 U.S. at 603-604 , 95 S.Ct. at 2261-2262 , the Supreme Court listed several factors pertinent to a trial court’s determination of whether the connection between an unlawful arrest and a confession is sufficiently attenuated, including (1) the provision of Miranda warnings; (2) the temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession; (3) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (4) the purpose and flagrancy of official misconduct. 2000In Brown, 422 U.S. at 603-604 , 95 S.Ct. at 2261-2262 , the Supreme Court listed several factors pertinent to a trial court’s determination of whether the connection between an unlawful arrest and a confession is sufficiently attenuated, including (1) the provision of Miranda warnings; (2) the temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession; (3) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (4) the purpose and flagrancy of official misconduct. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Kelly
green
1 sentence1996Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.