statement after privilege (Maine) · Go Syfert
← Maine issues

statement after privilege in Maine

6 Maine opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2008 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maine 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Miranda v. Arizonagreen
scotus · 1966 · cited in 6 Maine opinions naming this issue, 1981–2008
2 sentences

1998Without the right to cut off questions, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. *1017 Id. at 473-74 , 86 S.Ct. at 1627-28 .

1998Without the right to cut off questions, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. *1017 Id. at 473-74 , 86 S.Ct. at 1627-28 .

26
State v. Rossignolgreen
me · 1993 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008Miranda, 384 U.S. at 473-74 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 (footnote omitted). [¶ 41] After a suspect has invoked his right to remain silent, he cannot be found later to have waived that right by responding to later police questioning unless his invocation of that right has been “scrupulously honored.” Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104 , 96 S.Ct. 321 ; Holloway, 2000 ME 172, ¶ 23 , 760 A.2d at 231 (citing State v. Rossignol, 627 A.2d 524, 526-27 (Me.1993)). [¶ 42] However, the in-custody assertion of the right to remain silent does not act as an impenetrable bar to future in-custody questioning.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Michigan v. Mosley green
scotus · 1975
2 sentences

2008Miranda, 384 U.S. at 473-74 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 (footnote omitted). [¶ 41] After a suspect has invoked his right to remain silent, he cannot be found later to have waived that right by responding to later police questioning unless his invocation of that right has been “scrupulously honored.” Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104 , 96 S.Ct. 321 ; Holloway, 2000 ME 172, ¶ 23 , 760 A.2d at 231 (citing State v. Rossignol, 627 A.2d 524, 526-27 (Me.1993)). [¶ 42] However, the in-custody assertion of the right to remain silent does not act as an impenetrable bar to future in-custody questioning.

2008Miranda, 384 U.S. at 473-74 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 (footnote omitted). [¶ 41] After a suspect has invoked his right to remain silent, he cannot be found later to have waived that right by responding to later police questioning unless his invocation of that right has been “scrupulously honored.” Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104 , 96 S.Ct. 321 ; Holloway, 2000 ME 172, ¶ 23 , 760 A.2d at 231 (citing State v. Rossignol, 627 A.2d 524, 526-27 (Me.1993)). [¶ 42] However, the in-custody assertion of the right to remain silent does not act as an impenetrable bar to future in-custody questioning.

31981–2008
State v. Holloway green
me · 2000
2 sentences

2008Miranda, 384 U.S. at 473-74 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 (footnote omitted). [¶ 41] After a suspect has invoked his right to remain silent, he cannot be found later to have waived that right by responding to later police questioning unless his invocation of that right has been “scrupulously honored.” Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104 , 96 S.Ct. 321 ; Holloway, 2000 ME 172, ¶ 23 , 760 A.2d at 231 (citing State v. Rossignol, 627 A.2d 524, 526-27 (Me.1993)). [¶ 42] However, the in-custody assertion of the right to remain silent does not act as an impenetrable bar to future in-custody questioning.

2008Miranda, 384 U.S. at 473-74 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 (footnote omitted). [¶ 41] After a suspect has invoked his right to remain silent, he cannot be found later to have waived that right by responding to later police questioning unless his invocation of that right has been “scrupulously honored.” Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104 , 96 S.Ct. 321 ; Holloway, 2000 ME 172, ¶ 23 , 760 A.2d at 231 (citing State v. Rossignol, 627 A.2d 524, 526-27 (Me.1993)). [¶ 42] However, the in-custody assertion of the right to remain silent does not act as an impenetrable bar to future in-custody questioning.

12008–2008

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ME § Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 201 (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

CA 24 (1968–2021) FL 11 (1977–2018) MI 9 (1974–2019) TX 9 (1976–2009) OH 6 (1975–2013) ME 6 (1981–2008) IL 6 (1976–2019) NY 6 (1978–2007) IA 5 (1969–2006) AL 5 (1977–1999) AZ 5 (1972–1995) PA 5 (1972–2011) MA 4 (1978–2009) NJ 4 (1986–2008) MO 4 (1980–2016) NM 4 (2000–2016) CT 4 (1986–2007) NE 4 (1980–2003) OR 3 (1978–2018) TN 3 (1989–2022) WA 3 (1989–2024) LA 3 (1971–1986) DC 3 (1981–2015) VA 3 (2001–2006) MS 3 (1978–2016) MD 3 (1969–1980) OK 2 (1983–2026) NH 2 (1992–2002) ID 2 (1976–2020) NC 2 (1981–2016) WI 2 (1983–1990) KY 2 (2013–2022)

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