Legal Opinion
State v. Whitehead
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided July 17, 1990No. C7-89-1769PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CRIPPEN, Judge.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) renders inadmissible in a criminal case any incriminating statements produced by custodial interrogation unless steps are taken to give the defendant advice on constitutional rights of silence and the assistance of counsel. Appellant was given an implied con*147sent advisory without first being informed of these rights and was denied his repeated claim of a right to consult with an attorney. This appeal requires a determination whether the advisory conversation, demonstrated here by a video recording and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- South Dakota v. NevilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Pennsylvania v. MunizSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Presley v. City of BenbrookCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
- State v. MellettCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
- State v. GilmartinCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- Umphlett v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.