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 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2018The United States Supreme Court has held that when an individual in custody "indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease," and "any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion." Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 473-74 (III), 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 2018The United States Supreme Court has held that when an individual in custody "indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease," and "any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion." Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 473-74 (III), 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). | 1 | 5 |
Oregon v. Bradshawgreen2 sentences2018However, " '[i]f, after invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, the accused is found to have initiated contact with authorities and then knowingly and intelligently waived his rights, his ensuing statements will be considered properly obtained.' " Mack v. State , 296 Ga. 239 , 244, 765 S.E.2d 896 (2014), quoting Oregon v. Bradshaw , 462 U.S. 1039 , 1045, 103 S.Ct. 2830 , 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983) (plurality opinion). 2018However, " '[i]f, after invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, the accused is found to have initiated contact with authorities and then knowingly and intelligently waived his rights, his ensuing statements will be considered properly obtained.' " Mack v. State , 296 Ga. 239 , 244, 765 S.E.2d 896 (2014), quoting Oregon v. Bradshaw , 462 U.S. 1039 , 1045, 103 S.Ct. 2830 , 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983) (plurality opinion). | 1 | 2 |
Mack v. Stategreen2 sentences2018However, " '[i]f, after invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, the accused is found to have initiated contact with authorities and then knowingly and intelligently waived his rights, his ensuing statements will be considered properly obtained.' " Mack v. State , 296 Ga. 239 , 244, 765 S.E.2d 896 (2014), quoting Oregon v. Bradshaw , 462 U.S. 1039 , 1045, 103 S.Ct. 2830 , 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983) (plurality opinion). 2018However, " '[i]f, after invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, the accused is found to have initiated contact with authorities and then knowingly and intelligently waived his rights, his ensuing statements will be considered properly obtained.' " Mack v. State , 296 Ga. 239 , 244, 765 S.E.2d 896 (2014), quoting Oregon v. Bradshaw , 462 U.S. 1039 , 1045, 103 S.Ct. 2830 , 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983) (plurality opinion). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Michigan v. Mosley
green
2 sentences2018As the Supreme Court has noted, the passage "the interrogation must cease" could be literally interpreted to mean that "any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege [to remain silent]" would mandate exclusion of the statement from evidence "even if it were volunteered by the person in custody without any further interrogation whatever." Michigan v. Mosley , 423 U.S. 96 , 101-102, 96 S.Ct. 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975). 2018As the Supreme Court has noted, the passage "the interrogation must cease" could be literally interpreted to mean that "any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege [to remain silent]" would mandate exclusion of the statement from evidence "even if it were volunteered by the person in custody without any further interrogation whatever." Michigan v. Mosley , 423 U.S. 96 , 101-102, 96 S.Ct. 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975). | 2 | 2000–2018 |
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.