Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Coplin

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided May 13, 1993No. 91-P-659PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKass, J.

When police first arrested the defendant Coplin in a drug “bust,” an officer announced to him, in their entirety, the Miranda warnings. Later, when officers interrogated Coplin at a police station, they again informed Coplin of his Miranda rights, in speech and in writing, but each time omitting the warning that anything the suspect might say could be used against him in a court of law. In the particular circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the first warning did not carry over to the later ones, i.e., the chain of continuity was broken. Contrast Commonwealth v. Look, 379 Mass.…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. North Carolina v. ButlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Commonwealth v. MandileMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
  5. Commonwealth v. MandevilleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. DagracaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
  2. Commonwealth v. Vuthy SengMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
  3. State v. DeWeeseWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2003
  4. PEOPLE of the TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward R.C. DELA PENA, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
  5. Commonwealth v. JohnstonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2003

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API