6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1918–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Highland Sales Corp. v. Vancegreen1 sentence2025Specifically, the dissent acknowledges that: (1) the State’s argument did not present clear signs of bad faith as required by some of our precedent, see Highland Sales Corp. v. Vance, 186 N.E.2d 682, 689 (Ind. 1962) (requiring a complainant show that “such misconduct is actually the product of bad faith or evil design”); (2) the eggshell skull doctrine has been previously applied within our criminal law, see Bailey, 979 N.E.2d at 135, 142 ; and (3) the State’s invocation of the doctrine could easily fall within the purview Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 24S-CR-207 | March 12, 2025 Page 27 of | 1 | 1 |
Elmer J. Bailey v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2025Specifically, the dissent acknowledges that: (1) the State’s argument did not present clear signs of bad faith as required by some of our precedent, see Highland Sales Corp. v. Vance, 186 N.E.2d 682, 689 (Ind. 1962) (requiring a complainant show that “such misconduct is actually the product of bad faith or evil design”); (2) the eggshell skull doctrine has been previously applied within our criminal law, see Bailey, 979 N.E.2d at 135, 142 ; and (3) the State’s invocation of the doctrine could easily fall within the purview Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 24S-CR-207 | March 12, 2025 Page 27 of | 1 | 1 |
Vincent Coppola v. Ronald L. Powell, Etc.green1 sentence2010Further, these courts note that the "right to remain silent, unlike the right to counsel, attaches before the institution of formal adversary proceedings." Lane, 832 F.2d at 1017; see also Coppola, 878 F.2d at 1565 ("[The privilege is not limited to persons in custody or charged with a crime; it may also be asserted by a suspect who is questioned during the investigation of a crime."). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Cecil L. Bursongreen1 sentence2010In a pre-arrest setting as well as in a post-arrest setting, it is clear that a potential defendant's comments could provide damaging evidence that might be used in a criminal prosecution; the privilege should thus apply.") (citations omitted); Burson, 952 F.2d at 1200 ("The invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination must be given a liberal construction."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Namet v. United States
green
2 sentences2019In doing so, courts should focus on two factors: (1) error may result from prosecutorial misconduct when Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-94 | November 20, 2019 Page 20 of 30 the government makes a “conscious and flagrant” attempt to build its case out of inferences arising from a witness’s invocation of the privilege; and (2) prejudicial error may occur when the inferences from a witness’s refusal to testify add “critical weight to the prosecution’s case.” Id. (quoting Namet, 373 U.S. at 186-87 ). 2019In doing so, courts should focus on two factors: (1) error may result from prosecutorial misconduct when Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-94 | November 20, 2019 Page 20 of 30 the government makes a “conscious and flagrant” attempt to build its case out of inferences arising from a witness’s invocation of the privilege; and (2) prejudicial error may occur when the inferences from a witness’s refusal to testify add “critical weight to the prosecution’s case.” Id. (quoting Namet, 373 U.S. at 186-87 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
FW Woolworth Co., Inc. v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Borosh v. State
green
1 sentence1979While the court in Borosh v. State (1975), Ind.App., 336 N.E.2d 409 , 412-13 was not concerned with the invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination, we find the following language to be in harmony with that used in LaRiche : “A number of decisions have held such right to cross-examination to be infringed upon where a defendant’s counsel is wholly precluded from bringing before the jury on cross-examination relevant and substantial evidence bearing upon the credibility of a crucial witness against the accused. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Marion Francis Fountain and Roosevelt Tremble v. United States of America, Eugene J. Marshall v. United States
green
1 sentence1979Fountain v. United States (5th Cir. 1967), 384 F.2d 624, 628 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
United States v. Birdie Louise Joshua Harris, United States of America v. Billy Charles Harris
green
1 sentence1979See Davis v. Alaska, supra ; U. S. v. Duhart (6th Cir., 1975), 511 F.2d 7 ; Snyder v. Coiner (4th Cir., 1975), 510 F.2d 224 ; U. S. v. Harris (9th Cir., 1974), 501 F.2d 1 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Clyde Snyder v. Ira M. Coiner, Warden, West Virginia State Penitentiary
green
1 sentence1979See Davis v. Alaska, supra ; U. S. v. Duhart (6th Cir., 1975), 511 F.2d 7 ; Snyder v. Coiner (4th Cir., 1975), 510 F.2d 224 ; U. S. v. Harris (9th Cir., 1974), 501 F.2d 1 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
United States v. Paul Duhart, Paul Duhart v. United States
green
1 sentence1979See Davis v. Alaska, supra ; U. S. v. Duhart (6th Cir., 1975), 511 F.2d 7 ; Snyder v. Coiner (4th Cir., 1975), 510 F.2d 224 ; U. S. v. Harris (9th Cir., 1974), 501 F.2d 1 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Milner v. Bowman
green
2 sentences1918J. 490, §243, and cases cited; Milner v. Bowman (1889), 119 Ind. 448, 454 , 21 N. E. 1094 , 5 L. 1918J. 490, §243, and cases cited; Milner v. Bowman (1889), 119 Ind. 448, 454 , 21 N. E. 1094 , 5 L. | 1 | 1918–1918 |
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.