52 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1972–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma 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 |
|---|---|---|
Griffin v. Californiagreen2 sentences2017See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (prosecutor is prohibited from using defendant’s exercise of the constitutional right to remain silent against defendant in case-in-chief); Bosse v. State, 2017 OK CR 10, ¶30 , 400 P.3d 834, 847 (“It is settled that prosecutors cannot comment on a defendant’s exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, using it as substantive evidence of guilt.”); Hanf v. State, 1977 OK CR 41, ¶ 18 , 560 P.2d 207, 211 (“It is error for the prosecutor to comment — either directly or indirectly — at any 2017See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (prosecutor is prohibited from using defendant’s exercise of the constitutional right to remain silent against defendant in case-in-chief); Bosse v. State, 2017 OK CR 10, ¶30 , 400 P.3d 834, 847 (“It is settled that prosecutors cannot comment on a defendant’s exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, using it as substantive evidence of guilt.”); Hanf v. State, 1977 OK CR 41, ¶ 18 , 560 P.2d 207, 211 (“It is error for the prosecutor to comment — either directly or indirectly — at any | 4 | 7 |
Salinas v. Texasgreen2 sentences2017Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 , 133 S.Ct. 2174, 2179-80 , 186 L.Ed.2d 376 (2013). 2017Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 , 133 S.Ct. 2174, 2179-80 , 186 L.Ed.2d 376 (2013). | 2 | 4 |
Fisher v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2022Fisher v. United States , 425 U.S. 391, 408 (1976). 2022Fisher v. United States , 425 U.S. 391, 408 (1976). | 2 | 2 |
Doe v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2022Doe v. United States , 487 U.S. 201, 207 (1988); Fisher v. United States , 425 U.S. 391, 408 (1976). 2022Doe v. United States , 487 U.S. 201, 207 (1988); Fisher v. United States , 425 U.S. 391, 408 (1976). | 2 | 2 |
BOSSE v. STATEgreen2 sentences2017See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (prosecutor is prohibited from using defendant’s exercise of the constitutional right to remain silent against defendant in case-in-chief); Bosse v. State, 2017 OK CR 10, ¶30 , 400 P.3d 834, 847 (“It is settled that prosecutors cannot comment on a defendant’s exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, using it as substantive evidence of guilt.”); Hanf v. State, 1977 OK CR 41, ¶ 18 , 560 P.2d 207, 211 (“It is error for the prosecutor to comment — either directly or indirectly — at any 2017See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (prosecutor is prohibited from using defendant’s exercise of the constitutional right to remain silent against defendant in case-in-chief); Bosse v. State, 2017 OK CR 10, ¶30 , 400 P.3d 834, 847 (“It is settled that prosecutors cannot comment on a defendant’s exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, using it as substantive evidence of guilt.”); Hanf v. State, 1977 OK CR 41, ¶ 18 , 560 P.2d 207, 211 (“It is error for the prosecutor to comment — either directly or indirectly — at any | 2 | 2 |
Hanf v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (prosecutor is prohibited from using defendant’s exercise of the constitutional right to remain silent against defendant in case-in-chief); Bosse v. State, 2017 OK CR 10, ¶30 , 400 P.3d 834, 847 (“It is settled that prosecutors cannot comment on a defendant’s exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, using it as substantive evidence of guilt.”); Hanf v. State, 1977 OK CR 41, ¶ 18 , 560 P.2d 207, 211 (“It is error for the prosecutor to comment — either directly or indirectly — at any 2017See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (prosecutor is prohibited from using defendant’s exercise of the constitutional right to remain silent against defendant in case-in-chief); Bosse v. State, 2017 OK CR 10, ¶30 , 400 P.3d 834, 847 (“It is settled that prosecutors cannot comment on a defendant’s exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, using it as substantive evidence of guilt.”); Hanf v. State, 1977 OK CR 41, ¶ 18 , 560 P.2d 207, 211 (“It is error for the prosecutor to comment — either directly or indirectly — at any | 2 | 2 |
Malloy v. Hogangreen2 sentences1999See, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 , 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964). 1999See, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 , 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964). | 2 | 2 |
Sabouri v. Huntergreen2 sentences1998Williamson v. Evans, 1957 OK 304 , 319 P.2d 1112, 1116 . [14] Sabouri v. Hunter, 1979 OK 95 , 596 P.2d 891, 892-93 (prohibition was granted to guard against the chilling effect of the petitioner's act of invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination). 1998Williamson v. Evans, 1957 OK 304 , 319 P.2d 1112, 1116 . [14] Sabouri v. Hunter, 1979 OK 95 , 596 P.2d 891, 892-93 (prohibition was granted to guard against the chilling effect of the petitioner's act of invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination). | 2 | 2 |
Kastigar v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1994In Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 445 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212, 217 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination can be asserted in a civil proceeding. 1994In Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 445 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212, 217 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination can be asserted in a civil proceeding. | 1 | 3 |
Crane v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2017Citing Tyesha Goff's invocation of the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, he argues that he was precluded from presenting Goff's account of the homicides. ¶19 "[T]he Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense." Crane v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 683, 690, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 2146, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986) (quotations and citation omitted). 2017Citing Tyesha Goff's invocation of the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, he argues that he was precluded from presenting Goff's account of the homicides. ¶19 "[T]he Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense." Crane v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 683, 690, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 2146, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986) (quotations and citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Colorado v. Springgreen2 sentences2007See also Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 577 , 107 S.Ct. 851, 859 , 98 L.Ed.2d 954 , 968 (1987)(explaining that defendant's "awareness of all possible subjects of questioning in advance of interrogation is not relevant to determining whether the suspect voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Fifth Amendment privilege"). 2007See also Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 577 , 107 S.Ct. 851, 859 , 98 L.Ed.2d 954 , 968 (1987)(explaining that defendant's "awareness of all possible subjects of questioning in advance of interrogation is not relevant to determining whether the suspect voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Fifth Amendment privilege"). | 1 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Johnson v. State, 1995 OK CR 43 , śś 7-15, 905 P.2d 818, 821-23 (prosecutor's repeated questioning of co-defendant, resulting in repeated invocations of his Fifth Amendment privilege in front of the jury, denied defendant a fair trial). [12] Out-of-court statements, tending to exonerate the defendant and implicate the declarant, have traditionally been viewed with great suspicion. 2007Johnson v. State, 1995 OK CR 43 , śś 7-15, 905 P.2d 818, 821-23 (prosecutor's repeated questioning of co-defendant, resulting in repeated invocations of his Fifth Amendment privilege in front of the jury, denied defendant a fair trial). [12] Out-of-court statements, tending to exonerate the defendant and implicate the declarant, have traditionally been viewed with great suspicion. | 1 | 2 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences1994The issue in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) centered around an acknowledged Fifth Amendment violation: commenting on a defendant's failure to testify at trial. 1994The issue in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) centered around an acknowledged Fifth Amendment violation: commenting on a defendant's failure to testify at trial. | 1 | 2 |
BRAMLETT v. STATEgreen2 sentences2022See Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19 422 P.3d 788 ¶5 The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is limited to compelled communications that are both testimonial and incriminating. 2022See Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19 422 P.3d 788 ¶5 The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is limited to compelled communications that are both testimonial and incriminating. | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See 12 O.S.Supp.2014, § 2804(A)(1); Thompson , 2007 OK CR 38, ¶ 18, 169 P.3d at 1204 ("[U]navailability also includes the situation where a witness has a valid Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify[.]"). 14 The elements of gang-related offense as alleged in this case are 1) willfully; 2) attempts or commits; 3) murder and/or assault and battery with a deadly weapon; 4) while in association with any criminal street gang or gang member. 15 See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2020See 12 O.S.Supp.2014, § 2804(A)(1); Thompson , 2007 OK CR 38, ¶ 18, 169 P.3d at 1204 ("[U]navailability also includes the situation where a witness has a valid Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify[.]"). 14 The elements of gang-related offense as alleged in this case are 1) willfully; 2) attempts or commits; 3) murder and/or assault and battery with a deadly weapon; 4) while in association with any criminal street gang or gang member. 15 See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Hubbellgreen2 sentences2009Id. at 124-30 , 100 S.Ct. at 954-57 ; see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 40-46 , 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2045-48 , 147 L.Ed.2d 24 (2000) (finding that Fifth Amendment privilege and immunity given to overcome privilege include "testimonial aspect" of witness's actions in assembling and producing documents in response to subpoena, which led to grand jury indictment of witness; hence the privilege/immunity prohibit resulting prosecution of witness). 59 . 613 F.2d 38 (3rd Cir.1980). 60 . 2009Id. at 124-30 , 100 S.Ct. at 954-57 ; see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 40-46 , 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2045-48 , 147 L.Ed.2d 24 (2000) (finding that Fifth Amendment privilege and immunity given to overcome privilege include "testimonial aspect" of witness's actions in assembling and producing documents in response to subpoena, which led to grand jury indictment of witness; hence the privilege/immunity prohibit resulting prosecution of witness). 59 . 613 F.2d 38 (3rd Cir.1980). 60 . | 1 | 1 |
Donnelly v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2007See Dykes v. State, 11 Okl.Cr. 602, 611-14 , 150 P. 84, 87 (1915) (citing Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 , 33 S.Ct. 449 , 57 L.Ed. 820 (1913); Peck v. State, 86 Tenn. 259 , 6 S.W. 389 , 392 (1888)) ("To admit such [evidence] would be to overturn the well-settled rules of law which excludes [sic] hearsay; and would open the door to the most easily manufactured evidence. 2007See Dykes v. State, 11 Okl.Cr. 602, 611-14 , 150 P. 84, 87 (1915) (citing Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 , 33 S.Ct. 449 , 57 L.Ed. 820 (1913); Peck v. State, 86 Tenn. 259 , 6 S.W. 389 , 392 (1888)) ("To admit such [evidence] would be to overturn the well-settled rules of law which excludes [sic] hearsay; and would open the door to the most easily manufactured evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Dykes v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Dykes v. State, 11 Okl.Cr. 602, 611-14 , 150 P. 84, 87 (1915) (citing Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 , 33 S.Ct. 449 , 57 L.Ed. 820 (1913); Peck v. State, 86 Tenn. 259 , 6 S.W. 389 , 392 (1888)) ("To admit such [evidence] would be to overturn the well-settled rules of law which excludes [sic] hearsay; and would open the door to the most easily manufactured evidence. 2007See Dykes v. State, 11 Okl.Cr. 602, 611-14 , 150 P. 84, 87 (1915) (citing Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 , 33 S.Ct. 449 , 57 L.Ed. 820 (1913); Peck v. State, 86 Tenn. 259 , 6 S.W. 389 , 392 (1888)) ("To admit such [evidence] would be to overturn the well-settled rules of law which excludes [sic] hearsay; and would open the door to the most easily manufactured evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Allengreen2 sentences2007Cr. 465, 484, 182 P. 983, 940 (1913). ¶ 11 Similarly, authorities in other jurisdictions have made clear that their statutes also assume compulsion as a prerequisite. 9 These jurisdictions (depending on the particular wording of their immunity statute), differ as to the form the compulsion must take, 10 as well as whether the statute is "self-execut ing" or requires invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege before immunity can apply. 11 Nevertheless, despite such variations, we have found no jurisdiction that allows immunity to attach without the presence of some type of compulsion. 2007Cr. 465, 484, 182 P. 983, 940 (1913). ¶ 11 Similarly, authorities in other jurisdictions have made clear that their statutes also assume compulsion as a prerequisite. 9 These jurisdictions (depending on the particular wording of their immunity statute), differ as to the form the compulsion must take, 10 as well as whether the statute is "self-execut ing" or requires invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege before immunity can apply. 11 Nevertheless, despite such variations, we have found no jurisdiction that allows immunity to attach without the presence of some type of compulsion. | 1 | 1 |
Scribner v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Cr. 465, 484, 132 P. 933, 940 (1913). ¶ 11 Similarly, authorities in other jurisdictions have made clear that their statutes also assume compulsion as a prerequisite. [9] These jurisdictions (depending on the particular wording of their immunity statute), differ as to the form the compulsion must take, [10] as well as whether the statute is "self-executing" *205 or requires invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege before immunity can apply. [11] Nevertheless, despite such variations, we have found no jurisdiction that allows immunity to attach without the presence of some type of compulsion 2007Cr. 465, 484, 132 P. 933, 940 (1913). ¶ 11 Similarly, authorities in other jurisdictions have made clear that their statutes also assume compulsion as a prerequisite. [9] These jurisdictions (depending on the particular wording of their immunity statute), differ as to the form the compulsion must take, [10] as well as whether the statute is "self-executing" *205 or requires invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege before immunity can apply. [11] Nevertheless, despite such variations, we have found no jurisdiction that allows immunity to attach without the presence of some type of compulsion | 1 | 1 |
| McNeil v. Wisconsingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hammer v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bradshawgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re WINSHIPgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Robert J. Fletcher v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Robert Evans, Jr.green | 1 | 1 |
| Funkhouser v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Taylor v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. Illinoisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Curry v. State Bar of Wisconsingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Funkhouser v. Oklahomagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Van Cauwenberghe v. Biardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Leonard James and Otto Seboldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Lamphiergreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. John A. Thorntongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Layman v. Webbgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gardner v. Broderickgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Craig v. Borengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2020See 12 O.S.Supp.2014, § 2804(A)(1); Thompson , 2007 OK CR 38, ¶ 18, 169 P.3d at 1204 ("[U]navailability also includes the situation where a witness has a valid Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify[.]"). 14 The elements of gang-related offense as alleged in this case are 1) willfully; 2) attempts or commits; 3) murder and/or assault and battery with a deadly weapon; 4) while in association with any criminal street gang or gang member. 15 See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2020See 12 O.S.Supp.2014, § 2804(A)(1); Thompson , 2007 OK CR 38, ¶ 18 , 169 P.3d at 1204 ("[U]navailability also includes the situation where a witness has a valid Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify[.]"). 14 The elements of gang-related offense as alleged in this case are 1) willfully; 2) attempts or commits; 3) murder and/or assault and battery with a deadly weapon; 4) while in association with any criminal street gang or gang member. 15 See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). | 4 | 1975–2020 |
Edwards v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2018Minnick, 498 U.S. at 153 , 111 S.Ct. at 491 ; Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484 --85, 101 S.Ct. at 1885 . 2018Minnick, 498 U.S. at 153 , 111 S.Ct. at 491 ; Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484 --85, 101 S.Ct. at 1885 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Minnick v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2018Minnick, 498 U.S. at 153 , 111 S.Ct. at 491 ; Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484 --85, 101 S.Ct. at 1885 . 2018Minnick, 498 U.S. at 153 , 111 S.Ct. at 491 ; Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484 --85, 101 S.Ct. at 1885 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2017We find persuasive (although not binding on this Court) the following illuminating reasoning from the North Carolina Court of Appeals in State v. Thompson, 118 N.C. 2017We find persuasive (although not binding on this Court) the following illuminating reasoning from the North Carolina Court of Appeals in State v. Thompson, 118 N.C. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
BOSSE v. STATE
green
2 sentences2017See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (prosecutor is prohibited from using defendant’s exercise of the constitutional right to remain silent against defendant in case-in-chief); Bosse v. State, 2017 OK CR 10, ¶30 , 400 P.3d 834, 847 (“It is settled that prosecutors cannot comment on a defendant’s exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, using it as substantive evidence of guilt.”); Hanf v. State, 1977 OK CR 41, ¶ 18 , 560 P.2d 207, 211 (“It is error for the prosecutor to comment — either directly or indirectly — at any 2017See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (prosecutor is prohibited from using defendant’s exercise of the constitutional right to remain silent against defendant in case-in-chief); Bosse v. State, 2017 OK CR 10, ¶30 , 400 P.3d 834, 847 (“It is settled that prosecutors cannot comment on a defendant’s exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, using it as substantive evidence of guilt.”); Hanf v. State, 1977 OK CR 41, ¶ 18 , 560 P.2d 207, 211 (“It is error for the prosecutor to comment — either directly or indirectly — at any | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Spevack v. Klein
green
2 sentences1993In State v. Horton, 561 A.2d 488 (Me.1989), the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine explained that in Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 514 , 87 S.Ct. 625, 627 , 17 L.Ed.2d 574 (1967) the plurality opinion and the separate concurring opinion by Justice For-tas agreed that a lawyer could not be disciplined for asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. 1993In State v. Horton, 561 A.2d 488 (Me.1989), the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine explained that in Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 514 , 87 S.Ct. 625, 627 , 17 L.Ed.2d 574 (1967) the plurality opinion and the separate concurring opinion by Justice For-tas agreed that a lawyer could not be disciplined for asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. | 2 | 1993–1997 |
Marchetti v. United States
green
2 sentences1995Thus, it appears to us that the legislature contemplated the act should provide for protection against any violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.") (emphasis added). [36] Marchetti, 390 U.S. at 58 , 88 S.Ct. at 708 . [37] Unlike the Trafficking count which was supported by no direct evidence as to the essential elements of crime charged, this count is supported by direct evidence. 1995Thus, it appears to us that the legislature contemplated the act should provide for protection against any violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.") (emphasis added). [36] Marchetti, 390 U.S. at 58 , 88 S.Ct. at 708 . [37] Unlike the Trafficking count which was supported by no direct evidence as to the essential elements of crime charged, this count is supported by direct evidence. | 2 | 1979–1995 |
United States v. Quatermain, Drax
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 124-30 , 100 S.Ct. at 954-57 ; see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 40-46 , 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2045-48 , 147 L.Ed.2d 24 (2000) (finding that Fifth Amendment privilege and immunity given to overcome privilege include "testimonial aspect" of witness's actions in assembling and producing documents in response to subpoena, which led to grand jury indictment of witness; hence the privilege/immunity prohibit resulting prosecution of witness). 59 . 613 F.2d 38 (3rd Cir.1980). 60 . 2009Id. at 39-40 . 61 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
United States v. Apfelbaum
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 124-30 , 100 S.Ct. at 954-57 ; see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 40-46 , 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2045-48 , 147 L.Ed.2d 24 (2000) (finding that Fifth Amendment privilege and immunity given to overcome privilege include "testimonial aspect" of witness's actions in assembling and producing documents in response to subpoena, which led to grand jury indictment of witness; hence the privilege/immunity prohibit resulting prosecution of witness). 59 . 613 F.2d 38 (3rd Cir.1980). 60 . 2009Id. at 124-30 , 100 S.Ct. at 954-57 ; see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 40-46 , 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2045-48 , 147 L.Ed.2d 24 (2000) (finding that Fifth Amendment privilege and immunity given to overcome privilege include "testimonial aspect" of witness's actions in assembling and producing documents in response to subpoena, which led to grand jury indictment of witness; hence the privilege/immunity prohibit resulting prosecution of witness). 59 . 613 F.2d 38 (3rd Cir.1980). 60 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Price Peck v. State
neutral
1 sentence2007See Dykes v. State, 11 Okl.Cr. 602, 611-14 , 150 P. 84, 87 (1915) (citing Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 , 33 S.Ct. 449 , 57 L.Ed. 820 (1913); Peck v. State, 86 Tenn. 259 , 6 S.W. 389 , 392 (1888)) ("To admit such [evidence] would be to overturn the well-settled rules of law which excludes [sic] hearsay; and would open the door to the most easily manufactured evidence. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| New York v. Quarles green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Farley v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Sullivan v. Louisiana green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| United States v. Gaudin green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Mullaney v. Wilbur green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Estelle v. Smith green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Campbell green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State Ex Rel. Williamson v. Evans green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| In Re DBW green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Buckley v. Valeo green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Oregon v. Elstad green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| United States v. Washington green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Dineen green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Williams v. Florida green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Horton green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Moss green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Rogers v. United States green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Namet v. United States green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Brown v. Illinois green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| United States v. Albert Anzalone and Anthony Vivelo green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Grosso v. United States green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Johnson v. New Jersey green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Garrison v. Jennings green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Stovall v. Denno green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| In Re GAULT green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Herbert F. Smith, Jr. v. Howard Yeager, Warden, New Jersey State Prison green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Reed v. Reed green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| McCarthy v. Arndstein green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Garner v. United States green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Buchanan v. State green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.