criminal case violation (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

criminal case violation in Colorado

5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2007 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Hamiltongreen
colo · 1992 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
1 sentence

1997The legal analysis for voluntariness of an in-culpatory statement is applicable to statements made after a Miranda advisory is given and "some form of coercive police activity does not play a significant role in inducing the state *1177 ment." People v. Hamilton, 831 P.2d 1326, 1331-32 (Colo.1992).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Williams v. City and County of Denver green
colo · 1981
2 sentences

2007Williams v. City & County of Denver, supra , is distinguishable because it involved a constitutional challenge to a defendant's conviction in a criminal case for violation of a Denver Municipal Code provision.

2007Williams v. City & County of Denver, supra, is distinguishable because it involved a constitutional challenge to a defendant's conviction in a criminal case for violation of a Denver Municipal Code provision.

22007–2007
Miranda v. Arizona green
scotus · 1966
2 sentences

1997Statements made in violation of Miranda are not admissible in a criminal case because the warnings requirement is considered “fundamental with respect to the Fifth Amendment privilege and not simply a preliminary ritual to existing methods of interrogation.” 384 U.S. at 476 , 86 S.Ct. at 1629 . 10 .

1997Statements made in violation of Miranda are not admissible in a criminal case because the warnings requirement is considered “fundamental with respect to the Fifth Amendment privilege and not simply a preliminary ritual to existing methods of interrogation.” 384 U.S. at 476 , 86 S.Ct. at 1629 . 10 .

11997–1997
People v. Pronovost green
colo · 1989
1 sentence

1991People v. Pronovost, 773 P.2d 555 (Colo.1989).

11991–1991
PV v. District Court in and for the Tenth Judicial District green
colo · 1980
1 sentence

1987Applying the same standard, we have held that fundamental fairness requires that statutory and constitutional speedy tri *909 al protections be made applicable to juvenile, as well as adult, proceedings, P.V., 609 P.2d at 111 ; that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that governs certain adult probation revocation proceedings should also govern comparable juvenile probation revocation proceedings, C.B., 196 Colo, at 364, 585 P,2d at 282; and that the rule authorizing an adult defendant in a criminal case to challenge for cause a prospective juror employed by a law enforcement agen

11987–1987
People in Interest of RAD green
colo · 1978
1 sentence

1987Applying the same standard, we have held that fundamental fairness requires that statutory and constitutional speedy tri *909 al protections be made applicable to juvenile, as well as adult, proceedings, P.V., 609 P.2d at 111 ; that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that governs certain adult probation revocation proceedings should also govern comparable juvenile probation revocation proceedings, C.B., 196 Colo, at 364, 585 P,2d at 282; and that the rule authorizing an adult defendant in a criminal case to challenge for cause a prospective juror employed by a law enforcement agen

11987–1987

Where else courts name it

GA 27 (1893–2018) CA 26 (1905–2026) TX 18 (1954–2019) WI 18 (1965–2019) IL 18 (1897–2025) NY 12 (1929–2004) AR 10 (1950–2022) FL 10 (1936–2021) OR 9 (1927–2026) MO 8 (1957–2023) NJ 8 (1967–2018) PA 7 (1939–2016) MD 7 (1974–2022) OH 7 (1972–2025) NC 7 (1907–1994) AL 6 (1938–2007) CO 5 (1987–2007) KS 5 (1926–2020) MA 5 (1947–1978) CT 4 (1964–2005) MN 4 (1971–2006) TN 3 (2001–2011) DE 3 (1953–2021) NE 3 (1895–1960) WV 3 (1905–1994) ID 3 (2007–2014) MI 2 (1895–2015) RI 2 (1971–1992) DC 2 (1974–1991) IA 2 (2008–2008) NM 2 (1995–2019) NH 2 (1980–1985) ME 2 (1961–1985) IN 2 (2003–2016)

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