Citation network
United States Vs. Patane
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 28, 2004
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2003 United States V. PataneSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States United States V. PataneSearch
-
arrested him for violating the restraining order. Benner attempted to advise respondent of his rights under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
s argument that Oregon v. ElstadSearch
-
U. S. 298 , and Michigan v. TuckerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 433 , foreclosed application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine of Wong Sun v. UnitedSearch
-
which were based on the view that Miranda announced a prophylactic rule, were incompatible with Dickerson v. UnitedSearch
-
is a prohibition on compelling a criminal defendant to testify against himself at trial. See, e.g., Chavez v. MartinezSearch
-
the introduction of nontestimonial evidence obtained as a result of voluntary statements. See, e.g., United States v. HubbellSearch
-
s actual protections, see, e.g., Withrow v. WilliamsSearch
-
though the fruits of actually compelled testimony cannot, see New Jersey v. PortashSearch
-
textual protection supports a strong presumption against expanding the Miranda rule any further. Cf. Graham v. ConnorSearch
-
or whether there is anything to deter so long as the unwarned statements are not later introduced at trial. In Oregon v. ElstadSearch
-
U. S. 298 , New York v. QuarlesSearch
-
U. S. 649 , and Harris v. NewSearch
-
s recognition that the concerns underlying the Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
s unwarned statement than was presented in Elstad and Michigan v. TuckerSearch
-
opinion, in which Stevens and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion. United States v. PataneSearch
-
Opinion of Thomas, J. United States V. PataneSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 02-1183 United States, Petitioner V. SamuelSearch
-
Scalia join. In this case we must decide whether a failure to give a suspect the warnings prescribed by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
The Court has previously addressed this question but has not reached a definitive conclusion. See Massachusetts v. WhiteSearch
-
see also Patterson v. UnitedSearch
-
s decisions in Oregon v. ElstadSearch
-
U. S. 298 (1985), and Michigan v. TuckerSearch
-
U. S. 433 (1974), are instructive, the Courts of Appeals have split on the question after our decision in Dickerson v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 530 U. S. 428 (2000). See, e.g., United States v. Villalba-AlvaradoSearch
-
United States v. SterlingSearch
-
United States v. DeSummaSearch
-
United States v. FaulkinghamSearch
-
and Tucker, supra , foreclosed application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine of Wong Sun v. UnitedSearch
-
discussing United States v. SterlingSearch
-
F. 3d 216 (CA4 2002), and United States v. DeSummaSearch
-
discussing United States v. FaulkinghamSearch
-
Clause is a prohibition on compelling a criminal defendant to testify against himself at trial. See, e.g., Chavez v. MartinezSearch
-
see also United States v. HubbellSearch
-
in which answers might be used to incriminate them in a subsequent criminal case. See, e.g., United States v. BalsysSearch
-
cf. Kastigar v. UnitedSearch
-
Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn., Inc. v. CommissionerSearch
-
Harris v. NewSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial