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.
6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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. Tisongreen2 sentences2019See State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 526, 535 (1981); State v. Griffin, 117 Ariz. 54, 56 (1977); see also U.S. v. Hamilton, 587 F.3d 1199, 1213, 1215 (10th Cir. 2009) (holding that when the defendant asserted a Miranda rights violation for the first time on appeal, the issue had been waived). ¶7 In Tison, the defendant asserted several grounds on appeal for excluding his incriminating statements, including an argument that the statements were obtained in violation of Miranda. 129 Ariz. at 535 . 2019See State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 526, 535 (1981); State v. Griffin, 117 Ariz. 54, 56 (1977); see also U.S. v. Hamilton, 587 F.3d 1199, 1213, 1215 (10th Cir. 2009) (holding that when the defendant asserted a Miranda rights violation for the first time on appeal, the issue had been waived). ¶7 In Tison, the defendant asserted several grounds on appeal for excluding his incriminating statements, including an argument that the statements were obtained in violation of Miranda. 129 Ariz. at 535 . | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Hamiltongreen1 sentence2019See State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 526, 535 (1981); State v. Griffin, 117 Ariz. 54, 56 (1977); see also U.S. v. Hamilton, 587 F.3d 1199, 1213, 1215 (10th Cir. 2009) (holding that when the defendant asserted a Miranda rights violation for the first time on appeal, the issue had been waived). ¶7 In Tison, the defendant asserted several grounds on appeal for excluding his incriminating statements, including an argument that the statements were obtained in violation of Miranda. 129 Ariz. at 535 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Griffingreen1 sentence2019See State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 526, 535 (1981); State v. Griffin, 117 Ariz. 54, 56 (1977); see also U.S. v. Hamilton, 587 F.3d 1199, 1213, 1215 (10th Cir. 2009) (holding that when the defendant asserted a Miranda rights violation for the first time on appeal, the issue had been waived). ¶7 In Tison, the defendant asserted several grounds on appeal for excluding his incriminating statements, including an argument that the statements were obtained in violation of Miranda. 129 Ariz. at 535 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1988He argued for the first time on appeal that the statements were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and the sixth amendment right to counsel. 1988He argued for the first time on appeal that the statements were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and the sixth amendment right to counsel. | 4 | 1981–1988 |
Edwards v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1988Prior to defendant’s second trial, 1 he moved to suppress his statements to the law enforcement officers, alleging that the statements were obtained in violation of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), after the defendant had asserted his right to counsel. 1988Prior to defendant’s second trial, 1 he moved to suppress his statements to the law enforcement officers, alleging that the statements were obtained in violation of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), after the defendant had asserted his right to counsel. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.