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.
5 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2020See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475 (holding that “[a]n express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver”); People v. Williams, 124 Ill. App. 3d 734, 738 (1984) (“defendant’s conduct in nodding his head constituted an expression of his understanding of his Miranda rights and his following statement to police constituted a valid waiver of those rights”). ¶ 41 Defendant testified at the hearing that he did not understand the meaning of the words Ulloa was using and that he told Ulloa that he unde 1973The Supreme Court, however, goes on to say, 384 U.S. 475 , 16 L.Ed.2d at p. 724 , “If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel”. # * “An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver.” The precise contention and argument was recently raised bef | 1 | 5 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2020See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475 (holding that “[a]n express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver”); People v. Williams, 124 Ill. App. 3d 734, 738 (1984) (“defendant’s conduct in nodding his head constituted an expression of his understanding of his Miranda rights and his following statement to police constituted a valid waiver of those rights”). ¶ 41 Defendant testified at the hearing that he did not understand the meaning of the words Ulloa was using and that he told Ulloa that he unde | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Gary
green
2 sentences1973The Supreme Court, however, goes on to say, 384 U.S. 475 , 16 L.Ed.2d at p. 724 , “If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel”. # * “An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver.” The precise contention and argument was recently raised bef 1973The Supreme Court, however, goes on to say, 384 U.S. 475 , 16 L.Ed.2d at p. 724 , “If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel”. # * “An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver.” The precise contention and argument was recently raised bef | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. McKnight
green
1 sentence1970DRUCKER and ENGLISH, JJ., concur. 1 384 US 436 , 16 L Ed2d 694, 86 S Ct 1602 (1966). 2 For recent examples of the “articulation and the surrounding facts and circumstances” from which this court found waiver of constitutional rights, see People v. Johnson, 112 Ill App2d 148, 251 NE2d 393 and People v. Zepeda, 116 Ill App2d 246, 253 NE2d 598 . 3 See, for example 384 US 436 , at 475: “An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver.” 4 United States v. Fox, 403 F2d 97 (2nd Cir 1968); b | 1 | 1970–1970 |
People v. Zepeda
neutral
1 sentence1970DRUCKER and ENGLISH, JJ., concur. 1 384 US 436 , 16 L Ed2d 694, 86 S Ct 1602 (1966). 2 For recent examples of the “articulation and the surrounding facts and circumstances” from which this court found waiver of constitutional rights, see People v. Johnson, 112 Ill App2d 148, 251 NE2d 393 and People v. Zepeda, 116 Ill App2d 246, 253 NE2d 598 . 3 See, for example 384 US 436 , at 475: “An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver.” 4 United States v. Fox, 403 F2d 97 (2nd Cir 1968); b | 1 | 1970–1970 |
People v. Doherty
green
1 sentence1970DRUCKER and ENGLISH, JJ., concur. 1 384 US 436 , 16 L Ed2d 694, 86 S Ct 1602 (1966). 2 For recent examples of the “articulation and the surrounding facts and circumstances” from which this court found waiver of constitutional rights, see People v. Johnson, 112 Ill App2d 148, 251 NE2d 393 and People v. Zepeda, 116 Ill App2d 246, 253 NE2d 598 . 3 See, for example 384 US 436 , at 475: “An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver.” 4 United States v. Fox, 403 F2d 97 (2nd Cir 1968); b | 1 | 1970–1970 |
People v. Johnson
neutral
1 sentence1970DRUCKER and ENGLISH, JJ., concur. 1 384 US 436 , 16 L Ed2d 694, 86 S Ct 1602 (1966). 2 For recent examples of the “articulation and the surrounding facts and circumstances” from which this court found waiver of constitutional rights, see People v. Johnson, 112 Ill App2d 148, 251 NE2d 393 and People v. Zepeda, 116 Ill App2d 246, 253 NE2d 598 . 3 See, for example 384 US 436 , at 475: “An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver.” 4 United States v. Fox, 403 F2d 97 (2nd Cir 1968); b | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State v. Renfrew
green
1 sentence1970DRUCKER and ENGLISH, JJ., concur. 1 384 US 436 , 16 L Ed2d 694, 86 S Ct 1602 (1966). 2 For recent examples of the “articulation and the surrounding facts and circumstances” from which this court found waiver of constitutional rights, see People v. Johnson, 112 Ill App2d 148, 251 NE2d 393 and People v. Zepeda, 116 Ill App2d 246, 253 NE2d 598 . 3 See, for example 384 US 436 , at 475: “An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver.” 4 United States v. Fox, 403 F2d 97 (2nd Cir 1968); b | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Duckett v. State
green
1 sentence1970DRUCKER and ENGLISH, JJ., concur. 1 384 US 436 , 16 L Ed2d 694, 86 S Ct 1602 (1966). 2 For recent examples of the “articulation and the surrounding facts and circumstances” from which this court found waiver of constitutional rights, see People v. Johnson, 112 Ill App2d 148, 251 NE2d 393 and People v. Zepeda, 116 Ill App2d 246, 253 NE2d 598 . 3 See, for example 384 US 436 , at 475: “An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver.” 4 United States v. Fox, 403 F2d 97 (2nd Cir 1968); b | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Soolook v. State
green
1 sentence1970DRUCKER and ENGLISH, JJ., concur. 1 384 US 436 , 16 L Ed2d 694, 86 S Ct 1602 (1966). 2 For recent examples of the “articulation and the surrounding facts and circumstances” from which this court found waiver of constitutional rights, see People v. Johnson, 112 Ill App2d 148, 251 NE2d 393 and People v. Zepeda, 116 Ill App2d 246, 253 NE2d 598 . 3 See, for example 384 US 436 , at 475: “An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver.” 4 United States v. Fox, 403 F2d 97 (2nd Cir 1968); b | 1 | 1970–1970 |
People v. Raddatz
green
1 sentence1970DRUCKER and ENGLISH, JJ., concur. 1 384 US 436 , 16 L Ed2d 694, 86 S Ct 1602 (1966). 2 For recent examples of the “articulation and the surrounding facts and circumstances” from which this court found waiver of constitutional rights, see People v. Johnson, 112 Ill App2d 148, 251 NE2d 393 and People v. Zepeda, 116 Ill App2d 246, 253 NE2d 598 . 3 See, for example 384 US 436 , at 475: “An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver.” 4 United States v. Fox, 403 F2d 97 (2nd Cir 1968); b | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Guyette v. State
green
1 sentence1970DRUCKER and ENGLISH, JJ., concur. 1 384 US 436 , 16 L Ed2d 694, 86 S Ct 1602 (1966). 2 For recent examples of the “articulation and the surrounding facts and circumstances” from which this court found waiver of constitutional rights, see People v. Johnson, 112 Ill App2d 148, 251 NE2d 393 and People v. Zepeda, 116 Ill App2d 246, 253 NE2d 598 . 3 See, for example 384 US 436 , at 475: “An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver.” 4 United States v. Fox, 403 F2d 97 (2nd Cir 1968); b | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State v. Gillespie
green
1 sentence1970DRUCKER and ENGLISH, JJ., concur. 1 384 US 436 , 16 L Ed2d 694, 86 S Ct 1602 (1966). 2 For recent examples of the “articulation and the surrounding facts and circumstances” from which this court found waiver of constitutional rights, see People v. Johnson, 112 Ill App2d 148, 251 NE2d 393 and People v. Zepeda, 116 Ill App2d 246, 253 NE2d 598 . 3 See, for example 384 US 436 , at 475: “An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver.” 4 United States v. Fox, 403 F2d 97 (2nd Cir 1968); b | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Penn v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1970DRUCKER and ENGLISH, JJ., concur. 1 384 US 436 , 16 L Ed2d 694, 86 S Ct 1602 (1966). 2 For recent examples of the “articulation and the surrounding facts and circumstances” from which this court found waiver of constitutional rights, see People v. Johnson, 112 Ill App2d 148, 251 NE2d 393 and People v. Zepeda, 116 Ill App2d 246, 253 NE2d 598 . 3 See, for example 384 US 436 , at 475: “An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver.” 4 United States v. Fox, 403 F2d 97 (2nd Cir 1968); b | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.