Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Michigan Vs. Harvey

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 05, 1990

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

73 entries 13 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. Brewer Vs. Williams US Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1977
  2. Oregon Vs. Hass US Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1975
  3. United States Vs. Havens US Supreme Court · May 27, 1980
  4. Estelle Vs. Smith US Supreme Court · May 18, 1981
  5. Maine Vs. Moulton US Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1985
  6. Culombe Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1961
  7. Miranda Vs. Arizona US Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1966
    Distinguished
  8. United States Vs. Ash US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1973
  9. United States Vs. Cronic US Supreme Court · May 14, 1984
  10. Solem Vs. Stumes US Supreme Court · Feb 29, 1984
  11. New Jersey Vs. Portash US Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1979
  12. Oregon Vs. Bradshaw US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1983
  13. Perry Vs. Leeke US Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1989
  14. U.S. 344 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Michigan v. Harvey
    Search
  15. U.S. 344 (1990) Michigan v. Harvey
    Search
  16. impeachment purposes, because it was taken in violation of Harvey's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, citing Michigan v. Jackson
    Search
  17. announced in Edwards v. Arizona
    Search
  18. context of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during custodial interrogation. Moreover, Harris v. New
    Search
  19. by counsel from voluntarily choosing, on his own, to speak with police in the absence of an attorney. Cf. Patterson v. Illinois
    Search
  20. post, p. 494 U. S. 355 . Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. In Michigan v. Jackson
    Search
  21. the statement was voluntary, the prosecutor argued that it could be used for impeachment under our decision in Harris v. New
    Search
  22. The court noted that, if the second statement had been taken only in violation of the rules announced in Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  23. in violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See e.g., Michigan v. Jackson
    Search
  24. The essence of this right, we recognized in Powell v. Alabama
    Search
  25. Id. at 287 U. S. 58 , 287 U. S. 71 . More recently, in a line of cases beginning with Massiah v. United
    Search
  26. States, 377 U. S. 201 (1964), and extending through Maine v. Moulton
    Search
  27. from a defendant without an express waiver of the right to counsel. See also United States v. Henry
    Search
  28. and intelligent relinquishment of the Sixth Amendment Page 494 U. S. 349 right to counsel. Patterson v. Illinois
    Search
  29. that when a suspect waives his right to counsel after receiving warnings equivalent to those prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  30. and intelligent waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel for purposes of postindictment questioning. Patterson v. Illinois
    Search
  31. supra. In Michigan v. Jackson
    Search
  32. his Sixth Amendment right to counsel has subsequently waived that right. Transposing the reasoning of Edwards v. Arizona
    Search
  33. in the Fifth Amendment context, see Solem v. Stumes
    Search
  34. be considered voluntary, knowing, and intelligent under the traditional case-by-case inquiry called for by Brewer v. Williams
    Search
  35. taken in violation of Jackson can be admitted to impeach a defendant's inconsistent trial testimony. Michigan v. Jackson
    Search
  36. is based on the Sixth Amendment, but its roots lie in this Court's decisions in Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  37. on the States, see Michigan v. Tucker
    Search
  38. U. S. 446 (1974), to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Edwards v. Arizona
    Search
  39. to prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights. See Oregon v. Bradshaw
    Search
  40. in the prosecution's case-in-chief, they are admissible to impeach conflicting testimony by the defendant. Harris v. Page
    Search
  41. Id. at 401 U. S. 224 (quoting Walder v. United
    Search
  42. reliable and probative evidence for all purposes only when it is derived from involuntary statements. New Jersey v. Portash
    Search
  43. execute a knowing and intelligent waiver of that right in the course of a police-initiated interrogation. Patterson v. Illinois
    Search
  44. Michigan v. Mosley
    Search
  45. Adams v. United
    Search
  46. to conduct a hearing on that question. It is the State's burden to show that a waiver is knowing and voluntary, Brewer v. Williams
    Search
  47. Although Michigan v. Jackson
    Search
  48. Patterson v. Illinois
    Search
  49. that a defendant's waiver of his privilege against compelled self-incrimination is not voluntary. See Edwards v. Arizona
    Search
  50. Michigan v. Mosley
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial