McClinnahan v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1DissentFerren, Associate Judge
This case presents the question whether the accused, in remaining silent after Miranda warnings, should be understood to have asserted — or waived — his Fifth Amendment right to silence. My colleagues affirm the trial court’s implied finding that appellant either did not assert his right or did but eventually waived it before making an incriminating statement. I respectfully dissent because the trial court’s ruling is too ambiguous to be reviewable; the record should be remanded for clarification.
After receiving the proper warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Jackson v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.