United States v. Green
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
FARRELL, Associate Judge:
The government appeals from an order suppressing the confession of appellee (hereafter defendant) in this murder prosecution. The trial judge ruled that the police, in eliciting the confession, violated the prophylactic rule of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477,101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), as further explained in Minnick v. Mississippi, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 486, 112 L.Ed.2d 489 (1990). The government argues that suppressing the confession in this case amounts to a wholly unwarranted extension of the Edwards rule to circumstances presenting none of the concerns…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Tollett v. HendersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Oregon v. ElstadSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Carl J. Isaacs v. Frederick J. HeadCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2002
- Commonwealth v. PerezMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Commonwealth v. GalfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
- Clark v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- State v. TibiatowskiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.