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.
7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon 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. Jarnagingreen2 sentences2026A court must “suppress not only a defendant’s statements obtained in violation of Miranda but also evidence derived from that violation.” State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 715-16 , 277 P3d 535 (2012). “[T]he question whether testimonial or 706 State v. Crawford physical evidence derives from a prior Miranda violation cannot be reduced to a mechanical formula but will vary depending on the totality of the circumstances.” Swan, 363 Or at 131 . 2026A court must “suppress not only a defendant’s statements obtained in violation of Miranda but also evidence derived from that violation.” State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 715-16 , 277 P3d 535 (2012). “[T]he question whether testimonial or 706 State v. Crawford physical evidence derives from a prior Miranda violation cannot be reduced to a mechanical formula but will vary depending on the totality of the circumstances.” Swan, 363 Or at 131 . | 1 | 6 |
State v. Moore/Coengreen2 sentences2019The court explained that suppression of the videotape was necessary despite the defendant's apparent waiver because "[n]ot only did the video reenactment memorialize on film the statements obtained in violation of defendant's rights the night before, but defendant's unwarned statements * * * became, in effect, the script that he acted out the next day while the officers videotaped him." Id. ; see also State v. Moore/Coen , 349 Or. 371 , 385, 245 P.3d 101 (2010) (focusing on the state's use of the defendants' unwarned statements at trial to determine whether those statements "tainted" the defen 2019The court explained that suppression of the videotape was necessary despite the defendant's apparent waiver because "[n]ot only did the video reenactment memorialize on film the statements obtained in violation of defendant's rights the night before, but defendant's unwarned statements * * * became, in effect, the script that he acted out the next day while the officers videotaped him." Id. ; see also State v. Moore/Coen , 349 Or. 371 , 385, 245 P.3d 101 (2010) (focusing on the state's use of the defendants' unwarned statements at trial to determine whether those statements "tainted" the defen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vondehngreen2 sentences2012Id. at 475-76 ; see id. at 487 (Linder, J., concurring) (explaining that, when officers fail to provide the requisite Miranda warnings, “we properly ask whether any subsequently obtained evidence, physical or testimonial, is sufficiently a product of that violation to require suppression along with any statements made in direct response to unwarned custodial interrogation”). 2012Id. at 475-76 ; see id. at 487 (Linder, J., concurring) (explaining that, when officers fail to provide the requisite Miranda warnings, “we properly ask whether any subsequently obtained evidence, physical or testimonial, is sufficiently a product of that violation to require suppression along with any statements made in direct response to unwarned custodial interrogation”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Swan
green
2 sentences2026A court must “suppress not only a defendant’s statements obtained in violation of Miranda but also evidence derived from that violation.” State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 715-16 , 277 P3d 535 (2012). “[T]he question whether testimonial or 706 State v. Crawford physical evidence derives from a prior Miranda violation cannot be reduced to a mechanical formula but will vary depending on the totality of the circumstances.” Swan, 363 Or at 131 . 2026A court must “suppress not only a defendant’s statements obtained in violation of Miranda but also evidence derived from that violation.” State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703 , 706 State v. Crawford 715-16, 277 P3d 535 (2012). “[T]he question whether testimonial or physical evidence derives from a prior Miranda violation cannot be reduced to a mechanical formula but will vary depending on the totality of the circumstances.” Swan, 363 Or at 131 . | 2 | 2026–2026 |
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.