Involuntary Statements

17 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Porter v. United States
  258 F.2d 685· D.C. Cir.· 1958-06-26 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the admission of the first statement was not an error, and while the second statement's admissibility was debatable, it was not material to the outcome of the trial. Therefore, the conviction is affirmed.
• Harrison v. United States
  387 F.2d 203· D.C. Cir.· 1967-05-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the admission of testimony given by a defendant at a prior trial without effective assistance of counsel is reversible error, but that the admission of another defendant's prior testimony, even if tainted, did not prejudice him.
• Copeland v. Louie L. Wainwright
  505 So. 2d 425· Fla.· 1987-04-09 ·cited 31×
  Johnny Copeland, a death row inmate, sought habeas corpus relief and appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence. The Florida Supreme Court rejected all of Copeland's arguments, finding them either procedurally barred, previously decided, or la
• Houck v. State
  421 So. 2d 1113· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-11-17 ·cited 30×
  Thomas Houck appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to sell, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress extrajudicial statements. The appellate court reverses and remands because the trial court improperly considered unsworn testimony f
• United States ex rel. Robert Hudson v. Cannon
  529 F.2d 890· 7th Cir.· 1976-02-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that allegations of involuntary statements or Sixth Amendment violations during interrogation are sufficient to entitle a petitioner to an evidentiary hearing regarding the admissibility of third-party testimonial fruits.
• United States v. Alderete-Deras
  743 F.2d 645· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the failure to provide Miranda warnings does not render an alien's statements inadmissible in a deportation proceeding, absent a showing of coercion.
• United States ex rel. James Edward Hill v. Pinto
  394 F.2d 470· 3d Cir.· 1968-04-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal habeas court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if a petitioner deliberately bypassed their right to object to the admission of involuntary statements, and that statements obtained in violation of Escobedo or coercion cannot be used for
• Breedlove v. State
  364 So. 2d 495· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-10-25 ·cited 6×
  Dora Mae Breedlove was convicted of assault and battery after being tried for second degree murder. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress statements made during police interrogation that violated Miranda righ
• United States v. Camacho
  739 F. Supp. 1504· S.D. Fla.· 1990-05-25 ·cited 5×
  Statements made by officers under threat of job termination are inadmissible unless knowingly and voluntarily waived, as the choice between job and self-incrimination is not a free choice.
• State v. Dupont
  659 So. 2d 405· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-08-02 ·cited 4×
  The State appealed trial court orders suppressing statements DuPont made to police in connection with a first-degree murder charge. The court affirmed suppression of statements made after DuPont invoked his right to remain silent and statements from a polygraph examination and su
• Reaves v. State
  458 So. 2d 53· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-10-23 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that statements suppressed solely on Miranda grounds (not involuntariness grounds) are admissible to impeach a defendant's trial testimony, even where defense counsel relied on the trial court's inadvertent use of the word 'involunt
• O'Toole v. Palmer C. Scafati
  386 F.2d 168· 1st Cir.· 1967-12-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that statements made by a public official were not coerced, even if made out of fear of prosecution or job loss, when the official was experienced and not mistreated.
• Walker v. State
  353 So. 2d 968· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-01-10 ·cited 2×
  Affirmed conviction for first-degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and breaking and entering; trial court properly denied motion to suppress statements and properly restricted expert testimony on voluntariness.
• Suggs v. State
  303 So. 2d 687· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-12-06 ·cited 2×
  Willie Suggs appeals his second degree murder conviction, arguing that the jury heard potentially prejudicial circumstances surrounding inadmissible statements he made to police, even though the substance of those statements was ultimately excluded. The court holds that the trial
• Wilson v. State
  832 So. 2d 883· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-12-12
  The court reversed and remanded a denial of a Rule 3.850 motion for ineffective assistance of counsel where the trial court failed to attach supporting documents or hold an evidentiary hearing on claims of counsel's failure to suppress an involuntary statement and inadequate inve
• Melendez v. State
  747 So. 2d 1011· Fla. 2d DCA· 1999-12-10
  Ivan Melendez appeals his convictions for first degree murder, attempted murder, and attempted robbery. While the appellate court identifies two errors regarding statements made to law enforcement—one in suppressing statements for involuntariness but allowing impeachment use, and
• United States v. Adkins
  426 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1970-05-28
  The court held that the inculpatory statements made by the appellant were voluntarily made and admissible.