Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

People v. Trujillo

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided July 1, 2002No. 01SC434Published

1Concurring in the judgmentJustice Coats

I understand the majority to hold that if the admission of a statement in the case-in-chief against a defendant would violate the Miranda rule, that statement cannot be used even for impeachment purposes unless the defendant testifies at trial. Because it seems clear to me that the defendant's custodial statement in this case did not adequately contradict the testimony of any defense witness, I consider it unnecessary to reach the broader question addressed by the majority. Because I also have concerns about various aspects of the majority's discussion of im*327peachment, its failure to…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Oregon v. ElstadSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Dickerson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  4. Michigan v. TuckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Walder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1954

15 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