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 Connecticut opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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. Palumbogreen2 sentences2026Therefore, as a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate State v. Robotham that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Palumbo, 193 Conn. App. 457, 463, 219 A.3d 878, cert. denied, 334 Conn. 909, 221 A.3d 43 (2019), cert. denied, 590 U.S. 906, 140 S. Ct. 2674, 206 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2020). 2026Therefore, as a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate State v. Robotham that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Palumbo, 193 Conn. App. 457, 463, 219 A.3d 878, cert. denied, 334 Conn. 909, 221 A.3d 43 (2019), cert. denied, 590 U.S. 906, 140 S. Ct. 2674, 206 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2020). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Griffingreen2 sentences2025See State v. Griffin, 232 Conn. App. 866, 882 , 337 A.3d 1211 (2025) (‘‘[a]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), petition for cert. filed (Conn. June 20, 2025) (No. 240408); see also State v. Patrick M., 344 Conn. 565 , 583 n.6, 280 A.3d 461 (2022) (because ‘‘it [was] undisputed that the defendant received Miranda warnings at the time of his arrest . . . any reference to the defendant’s postarrest silence a 2025See State v. Griffin, 232 Conn. App. 866, 882, 337 A.3d 1211 (2025) (‘‘[a]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), petition for cert. filed (Conn. June 20, 2025) (No. 240408); see also State v. Patrick M., 344 Conn. 565, 583 n.6, 280 A.3d 461 (2022) (because ‘‘it [was] undisputed that the defendant received Miranda warnings at the time of his arrest . . . any reference to the defendant’s postarrest silence als | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2025We conclude that the defendant’s Doyle claim is of constitutional magnitude; see State v. Smith, 180 Conn. App. 181, 195, 182 A.3d 1194 (2018) (claim that state violated defendant’s right to remain silent is of constitutional magnitude); and that the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error, as the record demonstrates that the defendant received a Miranda warning at the time of his arrest, and the Doyle claim relates, at least in part, to the defendant’s silence during a time period after the Miranda warning was given. 2025We conclude that the defendant’s Doyle claim is of constitutional magnitude; see State v. Smith, 180 Conn. App. 181, 195, 182 A.3d 1194 (2018) (claim that state violated defendant’s right to remain silent is of constitutional magnitude); and that the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error, as the record demonstrates that the defendant received a Miranda warning at the time of his arrest, and the Doyle claim relates, at least in part, to the defendant’s silence during a time period after the Miranda warning was given. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Patrick M.green2 sentences2025See State v. Griffin, 232 Conn. App. 866, 882, 337 A.3d 1211 (2025) (‘‘[a]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), petition for cert. filed (Conn. June 20, 2025) (No. 240408); see also State v. Patrick M., 344 Conn. 565, 583 n.6, 280 A.3d 461 (2022) (because ‘‘it [was] undisputed that the defendant received Miranda warnings at the time of his arrest . . . any reference to the defendant’s postarrest silence als 2025See State v. Griffin, 232 Conn. App. 866, 882, 337 A.3d 1211 (2025) (‘‘[a]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), petition for cert. filed (Conn. June 20, 2025) (No. 240408); see also State v. Patrick M., 344 Conn. 565, 583 n.6, 280 A.3d 461 (2022) (because ‘‘it [was] undisputed that the defendant received Miranda warnings at the time of his arrest . . . any reference to the defendant’s postarrest silence als | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bereisgreen2 sentences2017The defendant's claim raises a question of law over which our review is plenary." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lee-Riveras , 130 Conn.App. 607 , 612-13, 23 A.3d 1269 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 937 , 28 A.3d 992 (2011) ; see also State v. Bereis , 117 Conn.App. 360 , 373, 978 A.2d 1122 (2009). 2017The defendant's claim raises a question of law over which our review is plenary." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lee-Riveras , 130 Conn.App. 607 , 612-13, 23 A.3d 1269 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 937 , 28 A.3d 992 (2011) ; see also State v. Bereis , 117 Conn.App. 360 , 373, 978 A.2d 1122 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
Leecan v. Connecticutgreen2 sentences2011See State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517, 531 , 504 A.2d 480 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184 , 106 S. Ct. 2922 , 91 L. 2011See State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517, 531 , 504 A.2d 480 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184 , 106 S. Ct. 2922 , 91 L. | 1 | 1 |
Stevens v. Fulcomergreen1 sentence2011See State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517, 531 , 504 A.2d 480 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184 , 106 S. Ct. 2922 , 91 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leecangreen2 sentences2011See State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517, 531 , 504 A.2d 480 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184 , 106 S. Ct. 2922 , 91 L. 2011See State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517, 531 , 504 A.2d 480 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184 , 106 S. Ct. 2922 , 91 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reddick v. Connecticut
green
2 sentences2025Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . [A]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 553 , 166 A.3d 754 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 921 , 171 A.3d 58 (2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1135 , 138 S. Ct. 1027 , 200 L. Ed. 2d 285 (2018). 2025Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . [A]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 553 , 166 A.3d 754 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 921 , 171 A.3d 58 (2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1135 , 138 S. Ct. 1027 , 200 L. Ed. 2d 285 (2018). | 2 | 2019–2025 |
State v. Reddick
green
2 sentences2025Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . [A]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 553 , 166 A.3d 754 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 921 , 171 A.3d 58 (2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1135 , 138 S. Ct. 1027 , 200 L. Ed. 2d 285 (2018). 2025Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . [A]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 553 , 166 A.3d 754 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 921 , 171 A.3d 58 (2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1135 , 138 S. Ct. 1027 , 200 L. Ed. 2d 285 (2018). | 2 | 2019–2025 |
State v. Reddick
green
2 sentences2025Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . [A]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 553 , 166 A.3d 754 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 921 , 171 A.3d 58 (2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1135 , 138 S. Ct. 1027 , 200 L. Ed. 2d 285 (2018). 2025Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . [A]s a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 553 , 166 A.3d 754 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 921 , 171 A.3d 58 (2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1135 , 138 S. Ct. 1027 , 200 L. Ed. 2d 285 (2018). | 2 | 2019–2025 |
Perez v. Commissioner of Correction
green
1 sentence2026Therefore, as a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate State v. Robotham that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Palumbo, 193 Conn. App. 457, 463, 219 A.3d 878, cert. denied, 334 Conn. 909, 221 A.3d 43 (2019), cert. denied, 590 U.S. 906, 140 S. Ct. 2674, 206 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2020). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Palumbo v. Connecticut
neutral
2 sentences2026Therefore, as a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate State v. Robotham that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Palumbo, 193 Conn. App. 457, 463, 219 A.3d 878, cert. denied, 334 Conn. 909, 221 A.3d 43 (2019), cert. denied, 590 U.S. 906, 140 S. Ct. 2674, 206 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2020). 2026Therefore, as a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate State v. Robotham that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Palumbo, 193 Conn. App. 457, 463, 219 A.3d 878, cert. denied, 334 Conn. 909, 221 A.3d 43 (2019), cert. denied, 590 U.S. 906, 140 S. Ct. 2674, 206 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2020). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Silano
green
2 sentences2025In State v. Silano, 204 Conn. 769 , 783-84, 529 A.2d 1283 (1987), our Supreme Court made an important distinction between a prosecutor’s comments concerning prior inconsistent statements made by a defendant and a prosecutor’s comments on the defendant’s post-Miranda silence. 2025In State v. Silano, 204 Conn. 769 , 783-84, 529 A.2d 1283 (1987), our Supreme Court made an important distinction between a prosecutor’s comments concerning prior inconsistent statements made by a defendant and a prosecutor’s comments on the defendant’s post-Miranda silence. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Lee-Riveras
green
2 sentences2017The defendant's claim raises a question of law over which our review is plenary." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lee-Riveras , 130 Conn.App. 607 , 612-13, 23 A.3d 1269 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 937 , 28 A.3d 992 (2011) ; see also State v. Bereis , 117 Conn.App. 360 , 373, 978 A.2d 1122 (2009). 2017The defendant's claim raises a question of law over which our review is plenary." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lee-Riveras , 130 Conn.App. 607 , 612-13, 23 A.3d 1269 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 937 , 28 A.3d 992 (2011) ; see also State v. Bereis , 117 Conn.App. 360 , 373, 978 A.2d 1122 (2009). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. KRIJGER
green
1 sentence2017The defendant's claim raises a question of law over which our review is plenary." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lee-Riveras , 130 Conn.App. 607 , 612-13, 23 A.3d 1269 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 937 , 28 A.3d 992 (2011) ; see also State v. Bereis , 117 Conn.App. 360 , 373, 978 A.2d 1122 (2009). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.