5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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. LeCroygreen2 sentences2001In State v. LeCroy, 435 So.2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), this court held that the trial court properly suppressed a firearm recovered as a result of information learned in a statement obtained in violation of Miranda. 2001In State v. LeCroy, 435 So.2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), this court held that the trial court properly suppressed a firearm recovered as a result of information learned in a statement obtained in violation of Miranda. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Stephen Graham-Wrightgreen1 sentence2020Id. at 968 (citing United States v. Graham-Wright, 715 F.3d 598, 601 (6th Cir. 2013); United States v. Nichols, 438 F.3d 437, 442 (4th Cir. 2006); Del Vecchio v. Ill. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James David Nichols, United States of America v. James David Nicholsgreen1 sentence2020Id. at 968 (citing United States v. Graham-Wright, 715 F.3d 598, 601 (6th Cir. 2013); United States v. Nichols, 438 F.3d 437, 442 (4th Cir. 2006); Del Vecchio v. Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Kansas v. Ventrisgreen2 sentences2017E.g., Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985); McWatters, 36 So.3d at 637-38 (“The Confrontation Clause ‘does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.’ ” (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 60 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004))); see also Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586, 594 , 129 S.Ct. 1841 , 173 L.Ed.2d 801 (2009) (holding that a statement obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment could nonetheless be used for impeachment purposes). 2017E.g., Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985); McWatters, 36 So.3d at 637-38 (“The Confrontation Clause ‘does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.’ ” (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 60 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004))); see also Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586, 594 , 129 S.Ct. 1841 , 173 L.Ed.2d 801 (2009) (holding that a statement obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment could nonetheless be used for impeachment purposes). | 1 | 1 |
McWatters v. Stategreen1 sentence2017E.g., Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985); McWatters, 36 So.3d at 637-38 (“The Confrontation Clause ‘does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.’ ” (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 60 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004))); see also Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586, 594 , 129 S.Ct. 1841 , 173 L.Ed.2d 801 (2009) (holding that a statement obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment could nonetheless be used for impeachment purposes). | 1 | 1 |
Almeida v. Stategreen2 sentences2007"A statement obtained in violation of this proscription cannot be used by the State." Almeida v. State, 737 So.2d 520, 525 (Fla.1999). 2007Moreover, as further explained in State v. Glatzmayer, 789 So.2d 297 (Fla.2001), the question on appeal is whether the officer made a "good-faith effort to give a simple, straightforward answer." 737 So.2d at 525 (citing Almeida 737 So.2d at 525 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Quinton Jackson
green
2 sentences2020Id. at 968 (citing United States v. Graham-Wright, 715 F.3d 598, 601 (6th Cir. 2013); United States v. Nichols, 438 F.3d 437, 442 (4th Cir. 2006); Del Vecchio v. Ill. 2020Instead, we adopt the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in Jackson: The state can use a statement obtained in violation of Miranda at sentencing if the record shows the statement was voluntary and reliable. 713 F. App’x at 968 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2017E.g., Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985); McWatters, 36 So.3d at 637-38 (“The Confrontation Clause ‘does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.’ ” (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 60 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004))); see also Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586, 594 , 129 S.Ct. 1841 , 173 L.Ed.2d 801 (2009) (holding that a statement obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment could nonetheless be used for impeachment purposes). 2017E.g., Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985); McWatters, 36 So.3d at 637-38 (“The Confrontation Clause ‘does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.’ ” (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 60 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004))); see also Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586, 594 , 129 S.Ct. 1841 , 173 L.Ed.2d 801 (2009) (holding that a statement obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment could nonetheless be used for impeachment purposes). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Tennessee v. Street
green
2 sentences2017E.g., Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985); McWatters, 36 So.3d at 637-38 (“The Confrontation Clause ‘does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.’ ” (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 60 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004))); see also Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586, 594 , 129 S.Ct. 1841 , 173 L.Ed.2d 801 (2009) (holding that a statement obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment could nonetheless be used for impeachment purposes). 2017E.g., Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985); McWatters, 36 So.3d at 637-38 (“The Confrontation Clause ‘does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.’ ” (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 60 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004))); see also Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586, 594 , 129 S.Ct. 1841 , 173 L.Ed.2d 801 (2009) (holding that a statement obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment could nonetheless be used for impeachment purposes). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Glatzmayer
green
1 sentence2007Moreover, as further explained in State v. Glatzmayer, 789 So.2d 297 (Fla.2001), the question on appeal is whether the officer made a "good-faith effort to give a simple, straightforward answer." 737 So.2d at 525 (citing Almeida 737 So.2d at 525 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.