Legal Opinion

United States v. Martin

District Court, C.D. Illinois

Decided August 11, 1997No. 96-30036PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

RICHARD MILLS, District Judge:

“Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to do so. But that privilege cannot be construed to include the right to commit perjury.” Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 225, 91 S.Ct. 643, 645, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971).

I. BACKGROUND

In a previous Order, the Court stated that it would reserve ruling on the issue of whether the Government could use the tape recorded conversations between Defendant Michael R. Martin and Curtis Fleming for impeachment purposes until it had been determined that Defendant would testify on his own…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  4. Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Colorado v. ConnellySupreme Court of the United States · 1986

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. VentrisSupreme Court of Kansas · 2008
  2. United States v. QuirozDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1999
  3. Martin v. United StatesDistrict Court, C.D. Illinois · 2001
  4. State v. VentrisSupreme Court of Kansas · 2008
  5. State v. VentrisSupreme Court of Kansas · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API