purpose of Miranda warning (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

purpose of Miranda warning in Connecticut

6 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 1 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

CaseCitedYears
Johnson v. Zerbst green
scotus · 1938
2 sentences

1996In accordance with the well established test of Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S. Ct. 1019 , 82 L.

1996In accordance with the well established test of Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S. Ct. 1019 , 82 L.

21989–1996
State v. Johnson green
conn · 2026
2 sentences

2026Page 68 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL February 3, 2026 132 FEBRUARY, 2026 354 Conn. 96 State v. Johnson to adequately safeguard a suspect’s right to the advice of counsel during a custodial interrogation and indeed is antithetical to the purpose of Miranda warnings, which is to “show the individual that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to exercise it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., quoting Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 468 .

2026Page 68 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL February 3, 2026 132 FEBRUARY, 2026 354 Conn. 96 State v. Johnson to adequately safeguard a suspect’s right to the advice of counsel during a custodial interrogation and indeed is antithetical to the purpose of Miranda warnings, which is to “show the individual that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to exercise it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., quoting Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 468 .

12026–2026
In re Enrique S. green
connappct · 1993
2 sentences

2010In re Enrique S., 32 Conn. App. 431, 436 , 629 A.2d 476 (1993).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Kevin K., supra, 217.

2010In re Enrique S., 32 Conn. App. 431, 436 , 629 A.2d 476 (1993).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Kevin K., supra, 217.

12010–2010
State v. Shifflett green
conn · 1986
2 sentences

1998“The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, including his right to remain silent.” State v. Barrett, 205 Conn. 437, 449 , 534 A.2d 219 (1987). “[T]he state must demonstrate: (1) that the defendant understood his rights, and (2) that the defendant’s course of conduct indicated that he did, in fact, waive those rights.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Shifflett, 199 Conn. 718, 731-32 , 508 A.2d 748 (1986).

1998“The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, including his right to remain silent.” State v. Barrett, 205 Conn. 437, 449 , 534 A.2d 219 (1987). “[T]he state must demonstrate: (1) that the defendant understood his rights, and (2) that the defendant’s course of conduct indicated that he did, in fact, waive those rights.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Shifflett, 199 Conn. 718, 731-32 , 508 A.2d 748 (1986).

11998–1998
State v. Barrett green
conn · 1987
2 sentences

1998“The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, including his right to remain silent.” State v. Barrett, 205 Conn. 437, 449 , 534 A.2d 219 (1987). “[T]he state must demonstrate: (1) that the defendant understood his rights, and (2) that the defendant’s course of conduct indicated that he did, in fact, waive those rights.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Shifflett, 199 Conn. 718, 731-32 , 508 A.2d 748 (1986).

1998“The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, including his right to remain silent.” State v. Barrett, 205 Conn. 437, 449 , 534 A.2d 219 (1987). “[T]he state must demonstrate: (1) that the defendant understood his rights, and (2) that the defendant’s course of conduct indicated that he did, in fact, waive those rights.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Shifflett, 199 Conn. 718, 731-32 , 508 A.2d 748 (1986).

11998–1998
State v. Madera green
conn · 1989
2 sentences

1996The purpose of Miranda warnings is to assure that a confession is the product of an “essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Madera, 210 Conn. 22, 48 , 554 A.2d 263 (1989).

1996The purpose of Miranda warnings is to assure that a confession is the product of an “essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Madera, 210 Conn. 22, 48 , 554 A.2d 263 (1989).

11996–1996
State v. Burge green
conn · 1985
2 sentences

1989“The purpose of Miranda warnings is to assure that a confession is ‘ “the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.” ' State v. Derrico, [supra, 163 ], quoting Culombe v. Connecticut, [supra, 602 ].” State v. Burge, 195 Conn. 232, 247 , 487 A.2d 532 (1985).

1989“The purpose of Miranda warnings is to assure that a confession is ‘ “the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.” ' State v. Derrico, [supra, 163 ], quoting Culombe v. Connecticut, [supra, 602 ].” State v. Burge, 195 Conn. 232, 247 , 487 A.2d 532 (1985).

11989–1989
State v. Derrico green
conn · 1980
2 sentences

1985The purpose of Miranda warnings is to assure that a confession is “ ‘the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.’ ” State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 163 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L.

1985The purpose of Miranda warnings is to assure that a confession is “ ‘the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.’ ” State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 163 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L.

11985–1985
Culombe v. Connecticut green
scotus · 1961
2 sentences

1985Ed. 2d 607 (1980), quoting Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 602 , 81 S. Ct. 1860 , 6 L.

1985Ed. 2d 607 (1980), quoting Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 602 , 81 S. Ct. 1860 , 6 L.

11985–1985
McClain v. Oklahoma green
scotus · 1980
1 sentence

1985The purpose of Miranda warnings is to assure that a confession is “ ‘the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.’ ” State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 163 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L.

11985–1985
Nash v. Reedel green
scotus · 1980
1 sentence

1985The purpose of Miranda warnings is to assure that a confession is “ ‘the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.’ ” State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 163 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L.

11985–1985
Payne v. Thompson green
scotus · 1980
1 sentence

1985The purpose of Miranda warnings is to assure that a confession is “ ‘the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.’ ” State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 163 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L.

11985–1985

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CT 6 (1985–2026) FL 6 (1970–2017) NJ 5 (1988–2017) TX 5 (2005–2024) IL 4 (2021–2024) IN 3 (2010–2017) NM 3 (2009–2023) SC 3 (2014–2020) OR 2 (2015–2015) KY 2 (2020–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check