Citation network
Wainwright Vs. Greenfield
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 14, 1986
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 284 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Wainwright v. GreenfieldSearch
-
U.S. 284 (1986) Wainwright v. GreenfieldSearch
-
corpus relief in Federal District Court, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, under the reasoning of Doyle v. OhioSearch
-
Page 474 U. S. 285 to breach that promise by using silence to overcome a defendant's plea of insanity. South Dakota v. NevilleSearch
-
such use of a defendant's silence violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as construed in Doyle v. OhioSearch
-
assault occurred. After handcuffing him, the officer gave respondent the warnings required by our decision in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
By a 2-to-1 vote, the Florida Court of Appeal for the Second District affirmed the conviction. Greenfield v. StateSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
s petition for certiorari and summarily remanded the case to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Clark v. StateSearch
-
was made either at the time the evidence was introduced or at the time of the prosecutor's comment. Greenfield v. StateSearch
-
taken by the Florida Supreme Court in a case decided after this respondent had exhausted his state remedies, see State v. BurwickSearch
-
cert. denied, 466 U.S. 931 (1984) -- the Court of Appeals held that, under the reasoning of Doyle v. OhioSearch
-
arrested person by the Miranda warnings has been repeatedly confirmed in subsequent decisions. Thus, in Fletcher v. WeirSearch
-
had induced silence by implicitly assuring the defendant that his silence would not be used against him. In Roberts v. UnitedSearch
-
induced the defendant to remain silent before his arrest. 447 U.S. at 447 U. S. 239 -240. Finally, in Anderson v. CharlesSearch
-
violates the Constitution than did the reference to a defendant's refusal to take a blood-alcohol test in South Dakota v. NevilleSearch
-
s principal rationale, which rested on the implied assurance contained in the Miranda warning. See South Dakota v. NevilleSearch
-
See Farrell v. StateSearch
-
cited in Greenfield v. StateSearch
-
General renewed the argument that the postarrest, post- Miranda warnings silence issue was barred by Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
addressed the issue on the merits. Thus, we must reject the Attorney General's argument. See Ulster County Court v. AllenSearch
-
U. S. 684 , 421 U. S. 704 , n. (1975) (REHNQUIST, J., concurring). Cf. Franks v. DelawareSearch
-
Manhattan Life Insurance Co. v. CohenSearch
-
See Sulie v. DuckworthSearch
-
United States v. TrujilloSearch
-
impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial. MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concurring in the judgment in United States v. HaleSearch
-
U.S. at 426 U. S. 618 -619 (footnotes omitted). In United States v. HaleSearch
-
process is not violated by the impeachment use of pre- Miranda warnings silence, either before arrest, Jenkins v. AndersonSearch
-
U. S. 231 (1980), or after arrest, Fletcher v. WeirSearch
-
U. S. 603 (1982), or of post- Miranda warnings statements, Anderson v. CharlesSearch
-
the jury to draw an inference of guilt from the exercise of their constitutional right to remain silent. Cf. Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
General's view about the probative value of silence in an insanity context. As the Florida court wrote in State v. BurwickSearch
-
This conclusion is supported by a number of state decisions, in addition to that of Florida. See Commonwealth v. MahdiSearch
-
People v. VandaSearch
-
People v. SchindlerSearch
-
with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring in the result. I agree with the Court that our opinion in Doyle v. OhioSearch
-
during Page 474 U. S. 299 questioning, which is derivative of his right to remain silent, see Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
the arresting officer, prearrest conduct of the defendant. Doyle does not bar this sort of testimony. Fletcher v. WeirSearch
-
the prosecutor's improper comment, at least suggests that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Cupp v. NaughtenSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Wainwright v. GreenfieldSearch
-
of Doyle v. OhioSearch
-
Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Greenfield v. StateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial