JERRY DANIELS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Halm v. State, 958 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
  …ion here is whether the false friend’s conversations with Halm — conducted after Halm had invoked his right to remain silent — constituted custodial interrogation within the meaning of Miranda. We hold that they did not. See United States v. Stubbs, 944 F. 2d 828, 831-32 (11th Cir.1991); Alexander v. Connecticut, 917 F. 2d 747, 750-51 (2d Cir.1990); State v. Anderson, 117 P. 3d 762, 763-67 (Alaska Ct.App.2005); State v. Hall, 204 Ariz. 442, 65 P. 3d 90, 97-100 (2003); People v. Guilmette, 1 Cal.App.4th 1534,…
• United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2005)
  …tion, the Supreme Court[ ] ... [made] clear that a single mention does not automatically suffice ... when the government does not specifically and expressly attempt to use ... the improper comment to impeach the defendant.” United States v. Stubbs, 944 F. 2d 828, 835 (11th Cir.1991) (citing Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 107 S.Ct. 3102, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987)). Thus, we have held that if the prosecution mentions the defendant’s silence only in passing, and makes no specific inquiry or argument about the def…
• United States v. Hogan, 986 F.2d 1364 (11th Cir. 1993)
  …in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. In United States v. Stubbs, 944 F. 2d 828, 836 (11th Cir.1991), we reiterated our three-part test for determining the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b): “(1) the evidence must be relevant to an issue other than defendant’s character; (2) the probative value must not be substantial…