52 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 v. Bereisgreen2 sentences2025See id., 592, 593 n.8; State v. Hughes, 45 Conn. App. 289, 296, 696 A.2d 347 (1997); State v. Crosby, 34 Conn. App. 261, 270, 641 A.2d 406, cert. denied, 230 Conn. 903, 644 A.2d 916 (1994). harmless beyond reasonable doubt because ‘‘prosecutor did not attempt repeatedly to introduce evidence of the defendant’s silence . . . [or] men- tion that evidence during his closing argument,’’ ‘‘prosecutor focused on the state’s strong case against the defendant, including the incriminating responses that the defendant gave to the police before terminating the [police] interview,’’ and ‘‘other evidence i 2025See id., 592, 593 n.8; State v. Hughes, 45 Conn. App. 289, 296, 696 A.2d 347 (1997); State v. Crosby, 34 Conn. App. 261, 270, 641 A.2d 406, cert. denied, 230 Conn. 903, 644 A.2d 916 (1994). harmless beyond reasonable doubt because ‘‘prosecutor did not attempt repeatedly to introduce evidence of the defendant’s silence . . . [or] men- tion that evidence during his closing argument,’’ ‘‘prosecutor focused on the state’s strong case against the defendant, including the incriminating responses that the defendant gave to the police before terminating the [police] interview,’’ and ‘‘other evidence i | 5 | 5 |
United States v. Harry Lloyd Davisgreen2 sentences2005State v. Silano, supra, 781 ; see also United States v. Davis, 546 F.2d 583, 594 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 906 , 97 S. Ct. 1701 , 52 L. 2005State v. Silano, supra, 781 ; see also United States v. Davis, 546 F.2d 583, 594 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 906 , 97 S. Ct. 1701 , 52 L. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Brunettigreen2 sentences2025See State v. Brunetti, [279 Conn. 39, 82–86, 901 A.2d 1 (2006)] (Doyle violation was harmless beyond reason- able doubt because defendant confessed to crime, police found clothing soaked in victim’s blood in defen- dant’s home, and defendant’s exculpatory story that he removed his clothing and that someone else dipped it in victim’s blood was transparently frivolous); State v. Montgomery, supra, 254 Conn. 718–20 (Doyle violation was harmless beyond reasonable doubt, in part because of overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, which consisted of eyewitness testimony identifying him as perpetr 2025See State v. Brunetti, [279 Conn. 39, 82–86, 901 A.2d 1 (2006)] (Doyle violation was harmless beyond reason- able doubt because defendant confessed to crime, police found clothing soaked in victim’s blood in defen- dant’s home, and defendant’s exculpatory story that he removed his clothing and that someone else dipped it in victim’s blood was transparently frivolous); State v. Montgomery, supra, 254 Conn. 718–20 (Doyle violation was harmless beyond reasonable doubt, in part because of overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, which consisted of eyewitness testimony identifying him as perpetr | 3 | 3 |
State v. Silanogreen2 sentences1994Ed. 2d 393 (1977); State v. Canty, 223 Conn. 703 , 728 n.2, 613 A.2d 1287 (1992) (Berdon, J., dissenting); see State v. Silano, 204 Conn. 769, 781 , 529 A.2d 1283 (1987) (Doyle error may be harmless if “the exculpatory story is transparently frivolous and evidence of guilt is otherwise overwhelming” [internal quotation marks omitted]). 1994Ed. 2d 393 (1977); State v. Canty, 223 Conn. 703 , 728 n.2, 613 A.2d 1287 (1992) (Berdon, J., dissenting); see State v. Silano, 204 Conn. 769, 781 , 529 A.2d 1283 (1987) (Doyle error may be harmless if “the exculpatory story is transparently frivolous and evidence of guilt is otherwise overwhelming” [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 2 | 8 |
State v. Montgomerygreen2 sentences2016See State v. Montgomery, supra, 254 Conn. at 718 -19 , 759 A.2d 995 ("We conclude that the Doyle violation in the present case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 2016See State v. Montgomery, supra, 254 Conn. at 718 -19 , 759 A.2d 995 ("We conclude that the Doyle violation in the present case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Hullgreen2 sentences1999"With respect to post-Miranda warning . . . silence does not mean only muteness; it includes the statement of a desire to remain silent, as well as of a desire to remain silent until an attorney has been consulted." Wainwright v. Green, 474 U.S. 284 , 295 , n. 13, 106 S.Ct. 634 , 88 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986); see also State v. Hull, 210 Conn. 481 , 489 , 556 A.2d 154 (1989); State v. Hughes, 45 Conn. App. 289 , 294 , 696 A.2d 347 (1997). "`The factual predicate of a claimed Doyle violation is the use by the state of a defendant's postarrest and postMiranda silence either for impeachment or as affirma 1999"With respect to post-Miranda warning . . . silence does not mean only muteness; it includes the statement of a desire to remain silent, as well as of a desire to remain silent until an attorney has been consulted." Wainwright v. Green, 474 U.S. 284 , 295 , n. 13, 106 S.Ct. 634 , 88 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986); see also State v. Hull, 210 Conn. 481 , 489 , 556 A.2d 154 (1989); State v. Hughes, 45 Conn. App. 289 , 294 , 696 A.2d 347 (1997). "`The factual predicate of a claimed Doyle violation is the use by the state of a defendant's postarrest and postMiranda silence either for impeachment or as affirma | 2 | 4 |
Don Garriga Chapman v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1987We agree with the Appellate Court that the criteria for finding a Doyle error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as set forth in Chapman v. United States, supra, 1249-50 , were adequately satisfied in this case. 1987We agree with the Appellate Court that the criteria for finding a Doyle error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as set forth in Chapman v. United States, supra, 1249-50 , were adequately satisfied in this case. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Hughesgreen2 sentences2025That is, the Doyle violation, together with the prosecutor’s other comments during closing and rebuttal arguments, conveyed and reinforced the idea that the defendant should not be believed because he never spoke up, either during the interview or at any time afterward, to provide a reasonable explanation for why K made her accusations against him.18 As such, 18 Compare State v. Hughes, 45 Conn. App. 289, 296, 696 A.2d 347 (1997) (‘‘trial court’s improper admission of the evidence of the defendant’s post- Miranda silence was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt’’ when ‘‘evi- dence of the def 2025That is, the Doyle violation, together with the prosecutor’s other comments during closing and rebuttal arguments, conveyed and reinforced the idea that the defendant should not be believed because he never spoke up, either during the interview or at any time afterward, to provide a reasonable explanation for why K made her accusations against him.18 As such, 18 Compare State v. Hughes, 45 Conn. App. 289, 296, 696 A.2d 347 (1997) (‘‘trial court’s improper admission of the evidence of the defendant’s post- Miranda silence was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt’’ when ‘‘evi- dence of the def | 2 | 3 |
State v. Kurankogreen2 sentences2018Accordingly, we decline to decide whether the state committed a Doyle violation, and we conclude that any claimed error was harmless and would not have affected the verdict. 13 See, e.g., State v. Francis , 83 Conn. App. 226 , 236, 849 A.2d 873 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 912 , 853 A.2d 529 (2004) ; see also State v. Pepper , 79 Conn. App. 1 , 15, 828 A.2d 1268 (2003) ("[a]ssuming without deciding that the state violated Doyle in its question posed to the defendant, we conclude that any impropriety was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"), aff'd , 272 Conn. 10 , 860 A.2d 1221 (2004) ; State v. K 2018Accordingly, we decline to decide whether the state committed a Doyle violation, and we conclude that any claimed error was harmless and would not have affected the verdict. 13 See, e.g., State v. Francis , 83 Conn. App. 226 , 236, 849 A.2d 873 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 912 , 853 A.2d 529 (2004) ; see also State v. Pepper , 79 Conn. App. 1 , 15, 828 A.2d 1268 (2003) ("[a]ssuming without deciding that the state violated Doyle in its question posed to the defendant, we conclude that any impropriety was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"), aff'd , 272 Conn. 10 , 860 A.2d 1221 (2004) ; State v. K | 2 | 3 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2025We conclude that the defendant’s Doyle claim is of constitutional magnitude; see State v. Smith, 180 Conn. App. 181, 195, 182 A.3d 1194 (2018) (claim that state violated defendant’s right to remain silent is of constitutional magnitude); and that the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error, as the record demonstrates that the defendant received a Miranda warning at the time of his arrest, and the Doyle claim relates, at least in part, to the defendant’s silence during a time period after the Miranda warning was given. 2025We conclude that the defendant’s Doyle claim is of constitutional magnitude; see State v. Smith, 180 Conn. App. 181, 195, 182 A.3d 1194 (2018) (claim that state violated defendant’s right to remain silent is of constitutional magnitude); and that the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error, as the record demonstrates that the defendant received a Miranda warning at the time of his arrest, and the Doyle claim relates, at least in part, to the defendant’s silence during a time period after the Miranda warning was given. | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Pawel Zygmunt Szymaniakgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Spanier v. United Statesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Channel v. United Statesgreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Goldinggreen2 sentences2025Held: This court reviewed the merits of the defendant’s unpreserved claim of a Doyle violation pursuant to State v. Golding (213 Conn. 233), as it was of constitutional magnitude and the record was adequate to review the alleged claim of error. 2025Held: This court reviewed the merits of the defendant’s unpreserved claim of a Doyle violation pursuant to State v. Golding (213 Conn. 233), as it was of constitutional magnitude and the record was adequate to review the alleged claim of error. | 1 | 9 |
State v. Jolygreen2 sentences2010After being given Miranda warnings, the defendant clearly chose to [forgo] his right to remain silent.” State v. Talton, 197 Conn. 280, 295 , 497 A.2d 35 (1985); see also State v. Kirby, supra, 280 Conn. 401 (testimony that defendant stated that he did not want to deal with filling out paperwork and that he “ ‘knew what he had done was wrong’ ” did not constitute Doyle violation because defendant did not invoke right to remain silent); State v. Joly, 219 Conn. 234, 257 , 593 A.2d 96 (1991) (“[A] defendant who voluntarily speaks after receiving Miranda warnings has not been induced to remain si 2010After being given Miranda warnings, the defendant clearly chose to [forgo] his right to remain silent.” State v. Talton, 197 Conn. 280, 295 , 497 A.2d 35 (1985); see also State v. Kirby, supra, 280 Conn. 401 (testimony that defendant stated that he did not want to deal with filling out paperwork and that he “ ‘knew what he had done was wrong’ ” did not constitute Doyle violation because defendant did not invoke right to remain silent); State v. Joly, 219 Conn. 234, 257 , 593 A.2d 96 (1991) (“[A] defendant who voluntarily speaks after receiving Miranda warnings has not been induced to remain si | 1 | 7 |
State v. Morrillgreen2 sentences2016The trial court therefore erred in admitting this evidence concerning the defendant's nonresponse to [the police officer's] accusatory inquiries." 10 (Citations omitted.) Id., at 538 , 498 A.2d 76 ; see also State v. Bereis, 117 Conn.App. 360 , 378-79, 978 A.2d 1122 (2009) (use of defendant's refusal to answer any questions a Doyle violation, but harmless). 2016The trial court therefore erred in admitting this evidence concerning the defendant's nonresponse to [the police officer's] accusatory inquiries." 10 (Citations omitted.) Id., at 538 , 498 A.2d 76 ; see also State v. Bereis, 117 Conn.App. 360 , 378-79, 978 A.2d 1122 (2009) (use of defendant's refusal to answer any questions a Doyle violation, but harmless). | 1 | 4 |
Orzechowski v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2005State v. Silano, supra, 781 ; see also United States v. Davis, 546 F.2d 583, 594 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 906 , 97 S. Ct. 1701 , 52 L. 2005State v. Silano, supra, 781 ; see also United States v. Davis, 546 F.2d 583, 594 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 906 , 97 S. Ct. 1701 , 52 L. | 1 | 4 |
Richardson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2005State v. Silano, supra, 781 ; see also United States v. Davis, 546 F.2d 583, 594 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 906 , 97 S. Ct. 1701 , 52 L. 2005State v. Silano, supra, 781 ; see also United States v. Davis, 546 F.2d 583, 594 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 906 , 97 S. Ct. 1701 , 52 L. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Reddickgreen2 sentences2025Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . [A]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 553 , 166 A.3d 754 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 921 , 171 A.3d 58 (2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1135 , 138 S. Ct. 1027 , 200 L. 2025Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . [A]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 553 , 166 A.3d 754 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 921 , 171 A.3d 58 (2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1135 , 138 S. Ct. 1027 , 200 L. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Peppergreen2 sentences2025See id., 592, 593 n.8; State v. Hughes, 45 Conn. App. 289, 296, 696 A.2d 347 (1997); State v. Crosby, 34 Conn. App. 261, 270, 641 A.2d 406, cert. denied, 230 Conn. 903, 644 A.2d 916 (1994). harmless beyond reasonable doubt because ‘‘prosecutor did not attempt repeatedly to introduce evidence of the defendant’s silence . . . [or] men- tion that evidence during his closing argument,’’ ‘‘prosecutor focused on the state’s strong case against the defendant, including the incriminating responses that the defendant gave to the police before terminating the [police] interview,’’ and ‘‘other evidence i 2025See id., 592, 593 n.8; State v. Hughes, 45 Conn. App. 289, 296, 696 A.2d 347 (1997); State v. Crosby, 34 Conn. App. 261, 270, 641 A.2d 406, cert. denied, 230 Conn. 903, 644 A.2d 916 (1994). harmless beyond reasonable doubt because ‘‘prosecutor did not attempt repeatedly to introduce evidence of the defendant’s silence . . . [or] men- tion that evidence during his closing argument,’’ ‘‘prosecutor focused on the state’s strong case against the defendant, including the incriminating responses that the defendant gave to the police before terminating the [police] interview,’’ and ‘‘other evidence i | 1 | 3 |
State v. Purcellgreen2 sentences2025Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . [A]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 553 , 166 A.3d 754 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 921 , 171 A.3d 58 (2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1135 , 138 S. Ct. 1027 , 200 L. 2025Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . [A]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 553 , 166 A.3d 754 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 921 , 171 A.3d 58 (2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1135 , 138 S. Ct. 1027 , 200 L. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2025Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . [A]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 553 , 166 A.3d 754 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 921 , 171 A.3d 58 (2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1135 , 138 S. Ct. 1027 , 200 L. 2025Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . [A]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 553 , 166 A.3d 754 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 921 , 171 A.3d 58 (2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1135 , 138 S. Ct. 1027 , 200 L. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Peppergreen2 sentences2025See id., 592, 593 n.8; State v. Hughes, 45 Conn. App. 289, 296, 696 A.2d 347 (1997); State v. Crosby, 34 Conn. App. 261, 270, 641 A.2d 406, cert. denied, 230 Conn. 903, 644 A.2d 916 (1994). harmless beyond reasonable doubt because ‘‘prosecutor did not attempt repeatedly to introduce evidence of the defendant’s silence . . . [or] men- tion that evidence during his closing argument,’’ ‘‘prosecutor focused on the state’s strong case against the defendant, including the incriminating responses that the defendant gave to the police before terminating the [police] interview,’’ and ‘‘other evidence i 2025See id., 592, 593 n.8; State v. Hughes, 45 Conn. App. 289, 296, 696 A.2d 347 (1997); State v. Crosby, 34 Conn. App. 261, 270, 641 A.2d 406, cert. denied, 230 Conn. 903, 644 A.2d 916 (1994). harmless beyond reasonable doubt because ‘‘prosecutor did not attempt repeatedly to introduce evidence of the defendant’s silence . . . [or] men- tion that evidence during his closing argument,’’ ‘‘prosecutor focused on the state’s strong case against the defendant, including the incriminating responses that the defendant gave to the police before terminating the [police] interview,’’ and ‘‘other evidence i | 1 | 3 |
Songlin v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . [A]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 553 , 166 A.3d 754 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 921 , 171 A.3d 58 (2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1135 , 138 S. Ct. 1027 , 200 L. 2025Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . [A]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 553 , 166 A.3d 754 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 921 , 171 A.3d 58 (2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1135 , 138 S. Ct. 1027 , 200 L. | 1 | 3 |
Reddick v. Connecticutgreen2 sentences2025Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . [A]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 553 , 166 A.3d 754 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 921 , 171 A.3d 58 (2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1135 , 138 S. Ct. 1027 , 200 L. 2025Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . [A]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 553 , 166 A.3d 754 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 921 , 171 A.3d 58 (2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1135 , 138 S. Ct. 1027 , 200 L. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Cantygreen2 sentences2000Custody is therefore not a prerequisite to a Doyle violation.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Plourde, supra, 208 Conn. 467 ; see also State v. Canty, 223 Conn. 703, 710 , 613 A.2d 1287 (1992); State v. Esposito, 223 Conn. 299, 318-19 , 613 A.2d 242 (1992). 2000Custody is therefore not a prerequisite to a Doyle violation.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Plourde, supra, 208 Conn. 467 ; see also State v. Canty, 223 Conn. 703, 710 , 613 A.2d 1287 (1992); State v. Esposito, 223 Conn. 299, 318-19 , 613 A.2d 242 (1992). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2025When we view the comment in the context in which it was made and with consideration of the fact that, in this case, the defendant was the only person who could contradict K’s testimony about the alleged sexual assault that formed the basis for the two charges; see State v. Walker, 206 Conn. 300 , 307–308, 537 A.2d 1021 (1988); we cannot ignore the possibility that the jury could have interpreted the remark as a ‘‘veiled comment on the defendant’s Page 22 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 24 ,0 0 Conn. App. 718 State v. William A. Hamilton, 352 Conn. 317 , 337–38, 336 A.3d 1188 (2025); we conclude t 2025When we view the comment in the context in which it was made and with consideration of the fact that, in this case, the defendant was the only person who could contradict K’s testimony about the alleged sexual assault that formed the basis for the two charges; see State v. Walker, 206 Conn. 300 , 307–308, 537 A.2d 1021 (1988); we cannot ignore the possibility that the jury could have interpreted the remark as a ‘‘veiled comment on the defendant’s Page 22 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 24 ,0 0 Conn. App. 718 State v. William A. Hamilton, 352 Conn. 317 , 337–38, 336 A.3d 1188 (2025); we conclude t | 1 | 2 |
| Brunetti v. Connecticutgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Camachogreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Camachogreen | 1 | 2 |
| Little v. Yale Universitygreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Butlergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Crosbygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brecht v. Abrahamsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Griffingreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Calderon-Perezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Patrick M.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jeffreygreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States of America, Ex Rel., Larry Saulsbury v. James Greer, Warden, Menard, Michael Lane, Director of the Department of Correctionsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 471880green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doyle v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2022The record was inadequate to review the defendant’s unpreserved claim that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence the recordings of the phone calls that the defendant had made to L from his holding cell after his arrest on the ground that the recordings contained evidence of the defendant’s postarrest silence, in violation of Doyle v. Ohio ( 426 U.S. 610 ): The successful assertion of a Doyle violation requires that the record contain certain factual predicates, including an indication that the defen- dant’s postarrest silence was preceded by the receipt of warnings in accordance wi 2022The record was inadequate to review the defendant’s unpreserved claim that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence the recordings of the phone calls that the defendant had made to L from his holding cell after his arrest on the ground that the recordings contained evidence of the defendant’s postarrest silence, in violation of Doyle v. Ohio ( 426 U.S. 610 ): The successful assertion of a Doyle violation requires that the record contain certain factual predicates, including an indication that the defen- dant’s postarrest silence was preceded by the receipt of warnings in accordance wi | 7 | 1991–2022 |
Wainwright v. Greenfield
green
2 sentences2016The petitioner's arguments to the habeas court were exclusively based on an alleged Doyle violation with citations to Doyle, Plourde, and their progeny. "[T]he Doyle analysis rests on the Due Process Clause [of the fourteenth amendment], not the Fifth Amendment." Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 , 293 n. 10, 106 S.Ct. 634 , 88 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986). 2016The petitioner's arguments to the habeas court were exclusively based on an alleged Doyle violation with citations to Doyle, Plourde, and their progeny. "[T]he Doyle analysis rests on the Due Process Clause [of the fourteenth amendment], not the Fifth Amendment." Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 , 293 n. 10, 106 S.Ct. 634 , 88 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986). | 5 | 1988–2016 |
State v. Daugaard
green
2 sentences2011Furthermore, “[a] Doyle violation may, in a particular case, be so insignificant that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict without the impermissible question or comment upon a defendant’s silence following a Miranda warning.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Daugaard, 231 Conn. 195, 212 , 647 A.2d 342 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1099 , 115 S. Ct. 770 , 130 L. 2011Furthermore, “[a] Doyle violation may, in a particular case, be so insignificant that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict without the impermissible question or comment upon a defendant’s silence following a Miranda warning.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Daugaard, 231 Conn. 195, 212 , 647 A.2d 342 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1099 , 115 S. Ct. 770 , 130 L. | 4 | 2003–2018 |
Ruiz-Cases v. United States
green
2 sentences2011Furthermore, “[a] Doyle violation may, in a particular case, be so insignificant that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict without the impermissible question or comment upon a defendant’s silence following a Miranda warning.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Daugaard, 231 Conn. 195, 212 , 647 A.2d 342 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1099 , 115 S. Ct. 770 , 130 L. 2011Furthermore, “[a] Doyle violation may, in a particular case, be so insignificant that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict without the impermissible question or comment upon a defendant’s silence following a Miranda warning.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Daugaard, 231 Conn. 195, 212 , 647 A.2d 342 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1099 , 115 S. Ct. 770 , 130 L. | 4 | 2003–2018 |
State v. Talton
green
2 sentences2017As to the subject matter of his statements, the defendant has not remained silent at all." In State v. Talton , 197 Conn. 280 , 292-93, 497 A.2d 35 (1985), our Supreme Court noted for purposes of evaluating a claimed Doyle violation that there is a distinction between a defendant who remains silent after he is arrested and advised of his rights, and a defendant who, after being given Miranda warnings, chooses to forgo such rights. 2017As to the subject matter of his statements, the defendant has not remained silent at all." In State v. Talton , 197 Conn. 280 , 292-93, 497 A.2d 35 (1985), our Supreme Court noted for purposes of evaluating a claimed Doyle violation that there is a distinction between a defendant who remains silent after he is arrested and advised of his rights, and a defendant who, after being given Miranda warnings, chooses to forgo such rights. | 4 | 2006–2017 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2022The record was inadequate to review the defendant’s unpreserved claim that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence the recordings of the phone calls that the defendant had made to L from his holding cell after his arrest on the ground that the recordings contained evidence of the defendant’s postarrest silence, in violation of Doyle v. Ohio ( 426 U.S. 610 ): The successful assertion of a Doyle violation requires that the record contain certain factual predicates, including an indication that the defen- dant’s postarrest silence was preceded by the receipt of warnings in accordance wi 2022The record was inadequate to review the defendant’s unpreserved claim that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence the recordings of the phone calls that the defendant had made to L from his holding cell after his arrest on the ground that the recordings contained evidence of the defendant’s postarrest silence, in violation of Doyle v. Ohio ( 426 U.S. 610 ): The successful assertion of a Doyle violation requires that the record contain certain factual predicates, including an indication that the defen- dant’s postarrest silence was preceded by the receipt of warnings in accordance wi | 3 | 2016–2022 |
| State v. Berube green | 2 | 2002–2016 |
| State v. Shashaty green | 2 | 1988–1992 |
| State v. Fencl green | 2 | 1987–1988 |
| State v. Michael J. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Courtney G. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Alexis neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Blue green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Walton green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Hamilton green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Cockrell green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Stone green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Kenny v. Dwyer green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Tomlinson green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Boone green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| United States v. Felmon Lakeith Laury, A/K/A Felmon Keith Ashley, A/K/A Walter Ray Nicholson green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Williams neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Gaston neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Smith v. Texas green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Castaneda v. United States neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Sesso v. Cuyler green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Jacques green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Herships v. California green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Granado v. Commissioner green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Jones v. Smith green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Kulmac green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Evans green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Francis green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Boyd green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Foxworth v. Pepe green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.