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.
7 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2013We have held unequivocally that “the ‘fruit’ of a voluntary statement obtained in violation of Edwards v. Arizona is not subject to the exclusionary rule.” Taylor v. State, 274 Ga. 269, 276 (4) ( 553 SE2d 598 ) (2001). 2013We have held unequivocally that “the ‘fruit’ of a voluntary statement obtained in violation of Edwards v. Arizona is not subject to the exclusionary rule.” Taylor v. State, 274 Ga. 269, 276 (4) ( 553 SE2d 598 ) (2001). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2013Accord State v. Woods, 280 Ga. 758, 759 ( 632 SE2d 654 ) (2006). 2013Accord State v. Woods, 280 Ga. 758, 759 ( 632 SE2d 654 ) (2006). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Patanegreen2 sentences2012The court also suppressed the physical evidence discovered in a garbage bag to which Ellington had directed the police during this portion of the interview; according to the trial court’s order, the bag included “a bloody T-shirt, a green towel, two sets of rubber gloves, a pair of white shoes, a hammer and some hair.” Compare United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. 630, 633-634 (124 SC 2620, 159 LE2d 667) (2004) (holding that physical evidence discovered as a result of a voluntary statement obtained in violation of Miranda may be admissible); Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (91 SC 643,28 LE2d 1) 2011See, e.g., United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. 630, 636 (I) (124 SC 2620, 159 LE2d 667) (2004) (“The Self-Incrimination Clause ... is not implicated by the admission into evidence of the physical fruit of a voluntary statement.”); Taylor v. State, 274 Ga. 269, 269 ( 553 SE2d 598 ) (2001) (“[T]he ‘fruit’ of a Miranda violation is not subject to the exclusionary rule under Georgia law.” (footnote omitted)); Brown v. State, 292 Ga. App. 269, 273 (1) ( 663 SE2d 749 ) (2008) (“The Supreme Court of Georgia has held that the ‘fruit’ of a voluntary statement obtained in violation of Miranda and Edwards | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Zantgreen2 sentences1990Note our prior holding in Wilson v. Zant, 249 Ga. 373, 378-9 ( 290 SE2d 442 ) (1982): We therefore hold that the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence derived from a voluntary statement obtained in violation of Edwards v. Arizona [, 451 U. S. 477 (101 SC 1880, 68 LE2d 378) (1981)], and that it was not error to admit the “fruits” of the defendant’s statement in this case. 1990Note our prior holding in Wilson v. Zant, 249 Ga. 373, 378-9 ( 290 SE2d 442 ) (1982): We therefore hold that the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence derived from a voluntary statement obtained in violation of Edwards v. Arizona [, 451 U. S. 477 (101 SC 1880, 68 LE2d 378) (1981)], and that it was not error to admit the “fruits” of the defendant’s statement in this case. | 2 | 2 |
English v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., English v. State, 288 Ga. App. 436, 442 (3) ( 654 SE2d 150 ) (2007) (“[A] judgment right for any reason will be affirmed.” (footnote omitted)). 2011See, e.g., English v. State, 288 Ga. App. 436, 442 (3) ( 654 SE2d 150 ) (2007) (“[A] judgment right for any reason will be affirmed.” (footnote omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. 630, 636 (I) (124 SC 2620, 159 LE2d 667) (2004) (“The Self-Incrimination Clause ... is not implicated by the admission into evidence of the physical fruit of a voluntary statement.”); Taylor v. State, 274 Ga. 269, 269 ( 553 SE2d 598 ) (2001) (“[T]he ‘fruit’ of a Miranda violation is not subject to the exclusionary rule under Georgia law.” (footnote omitted)); Brown v. State, 292 Ga. App. 269, 273 (1) ( 663 SE2d 749 ) (2008) (“The Supreme Court of Georgia has held that the ‘fruit’ of a voluntary statement obtained in violation of Miranda and Edwards 2011See, e.g., United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. 630, 636 (I) (124 SC 2620, 159 LE2d 667) (2004) (“The Self-Incrimination Clause ... is not implicated by the admission into evidence of the physical fruit of a voluntary statement.”); Taylor v. State, 274 Ga. 269, 269 ( 553 SE2d 598 ) (2001) (“[T]he ‘fruit’ of a Miranda violation is not subject to the exclusionary rule under Georgia law.” (footnote omitted)); Brown v. State, 292 Ga. App. 269, 273 (1) ( 663 SE2d 749 ) (2008) (“The Supreme Court of Georgia has held that the ‘fruit’ of a voluntary statement obtained in violation of Miranda and Edwards | 1 | 1 |
Andrews v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. 630, 636 (I) (124 SC 2620, 159 LE2d 667) (2004) (“The Self-Incrimination Clause ... is not implicated by the admission into evidence of the physical fruit of a voluntary statement.”); Taylor v. State, 274 Ga. 269, 269 ( 553 SE2d 598 ) (2001) (“[T]he ‘fruit’ of a Miranda violation is not subject to the exclusionary rule under Georgia law.” (footnote omitted)); Brown v. State, 292 Ga. App. 269, 273 (1) ( 663 SE2d 749 ) (2008) (“The Supreme Court of Georgia has held that the ‘fruit’ of a voluntary statement obtained in violation of Miranda and Edwards 2011See, e.g., United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. 630, 636 (I) (124 SC 2620, 159 LE2d 667) (2004) (“The Self-Incrimination Clause ... is not implicated by the admission into evidence of the physical fruit of a voluntary statement.”); Taylor v. State, 274 Ga. 269, 269 ( 553 SE2d 598 ) (2001) (“[T]he ‘fruit’ of a Miranda violation is not subject to the exclusionary rule under Georgia law.” (footnote omitted)); Brown v. State, 292 Ga. App. 269, 273 (1) ( 663 SE2d 749 ) (2008) (“The Supreme Court of Georgia has held that the ‘fruit’ of a voluntary statement obtained in violation of Miranda and Edwards | 1 | 1 |
Morgan v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See State v. Woods, 280 Ga. 758, 759 ( 632 SE2d 654 ) (2006); Taylor v. State, 274 Ga. 269, 276 (4) ( 553 SE2d 598 ) (2001); Wilson v. Zant, 249 Ga. 373, 378-379 (1) ( 290 SE2d 442 ) (1982), overruled on other grounds, Morgan v. State, 267 Ga. 203, 204-205 (2) ( 476 SE2d 747 ) (1996). 2008See State v. Woods, 280 Ga. 758, 759 ( 632 SE2d 654 ) (2006); Taylor v. State, 274 Ga. 269, 276 (4) ( 553 SE2d 598 ) (2001); Wilson v. Zant, 249 Ga. 373, 378-379 (1) ( 290 SE2d 442 ) (1982), overruled on other grounds, Morgan v. State, 267 Ga. 203, 204-205 (2) ( 476 SE2d 747 ) (1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Edwards v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2013What is more, there is no evidence that Rashid’s statements to police or to his family were coerced in any manner and the “fruit” of a voluntary statement obtained in violation of Miranda and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477 (101 SC 1880, 68 LE2d 378) (1981), is not subject to the exclusionary rule. 1990Note our prior holding in Wilson v. Zant, 249 Ga. 373, 378-9 ( 290 SE2d 442 ) (1982): We therefore hold that the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence derived from a voluntary statement obtained in violation of Edwards v. Arizona [, 451 U. S. 477 (101 SC 1880, 68 LE2d 378) (1981)], and that it was not error to admit the “fruits” of the defendant’s statement in this case. | 2 | 1990–2013 |
Harris v. New York
green
1 sentence2012The court also suppressed the physical evidence discovered in a garbage bag to which Ellington had directed the police during this portion of the interview; according to the trial court’s order, the bag included “a bloody T-shirt, a green towel, two sets of rubber gloves, a pair of white shoes, a hammer and some hair.” Compare United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. 630, 633-634 (124 SC 2620, 159 LE2d 667) (2004) (holding that physical evidence discovered as a result of a voluntary statement obtained in violation of Miranda may be admissible); Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (91 SC 643,28 LE2d 1) | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.