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 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
Edwards v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2018See Edwards v. Arizona , 451 U.S. 477 , 487, 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 1886, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). 4 Therefore, in my view the factors delineated in our cases pertaining *196 to the voluntariness of a confession should govern any assessment of whether Appellee's confession was the product of government coercion so that its fruits are suppressible. 2018See Edwards v. Arizona , 451 U.S. 477 , 487, 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 1886, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). 4 Therefore, in my view the factors delineated in our cases pertaining *196 to the voluntariness of a confession should govern any assessment of whether Appellee's confession was the product of government coercion so that its fruits are suppressible. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Millergreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Miller, 513 Pa. 118 , 518 A.2d 1187, 1195 (1986) (recognizing that “the exclusionary rule is a judicially created device designed to deter improper governmental action in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions. 2014See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Miller, 513 Pa. 118 , 518 A.2d 1187, 1195 (1986) (recognizing that “the exclusionary rule is a judicially created device designed to deter improper governmental action in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Robert Mosley
green
2 sentences2017Mosley, 454 F.3d at 257-58 . 2017Mosley, 454 F.3d at 257-58 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Patane
green
2 sentences2004The plurality held that the fruits doctrine does not apply to derivative physical evidence obtained through an illegal statement, id. at 2629-2630 , reasoning that “exclusion of unwarned statements is a complete and sufficient remedy for any perceived Miranda violation.” Id. at 2626 . 2004The plurality held that the fruits doctrine does not apply to derivative physical evidence obtained through an illegal statement, id. at 2629-2630 , reasoning that “exclusion of unwarned statements is a complete and sufficient remedy for any perceived Miranda violation.” Id. at 2626 . | 2 | 2004–2009 |
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.