Legal Opinion

Holyfield v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1985No. 13967Published

1ConcurrenceYoung, J.

While I fully concur in and endorse the opinion of the court, I add these observations in support of it.

As the dissent notes, an important policy underlying the fifth amendment’s proscription against the use of compelled testimony is the prevention of extorted admissions of guilt. However, a paramount concern is also the need to insure that purported admissions have actually been made as reported. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 470 (1966). This concern is especially great where the state seeks to rest upon the uncorroborated testimony of a twice-convicted felon with a self-serving motive…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. United States v. LeonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Massiah v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Oregon v. ElstadSupreme Court of the United States · 1985

23 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