8 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of Tennessee v. Marco M. Northerngreen2 sentences2018“The warnings and waiver mandated by Miranda ‘are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant’ during custodial interrogation, whether inculpatory or exculpatory.” State v. Northern, 262 S.W.3d 741, 749 (Tenn. 2008) (quoting Miranda, 348 U.S. at 476). 2013The Tennessee Supreme Court has stated, “The warnings and waiver mandated by Miranda ‘are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant’ during custodial interrogation, whether inculpatory or exculpatory.” Northern, 262 S.W.3d at 749 (quoting -5- Miranda, 384 U.S. at 476 ). | 4 | 5 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2013The Tennessee Supreme Court has stated, “The warnings and waiver mandated by Miranda ‘are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant’ during custodial interrogation, whether inculpatory or exculpatory.” Northern, 262 S.W.3d at 749 (quoting -5- Miranda, 384 U.S. at 476 ). 2013The Tennessee Supreme Court has stated, “The warnings and waiver mandated by Miranda ‘are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant’ during custodial interrogation, whether inculpatory or exculpatory.” State v. Northern, 262 S.W.3d 741, 749 (Tenn. 2008) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 476 ). | 3 | 7 |
State v. Bushgreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., Miranda, 384 U.S. at 466 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 (“The warnings required and the waiver necessary in accordance with our opinion today are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant.”); State v. Bush, 942 S.W.2d 489, 499 (Tenn.1997). 2001See, e.g., Miranda, 384 U.S. at 466 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ("The warnings required and the waiver necessary in accordance with our opinion today are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant."); State v. Bush, 942 S.W.2d 489, 499 (Tenn.1997). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hurleygreen1 sentence2000However, the evidence of guilt in this case consists not only of statements made by the appellee, but also of physical evidence obtained from his “custodial expedition for incriminating evidence.”8 In vacating the appellee’s plea and dismissing the charges, the Court of Criminal Appeals suppressed all of the evidence in this case, including the recovered property, finding that the failure to inform the appellee of his rights, combined with the “particular nature of [the officers’] interrogation,” 7 The fact that the location of the stolen property was derived from the express questioning of Of | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.