MAY

v.

INDIANA

Citator

Cited By (64 total)

• Wells v. State, 402 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1981)
  …ps. See United States v. York, 578 F. 2d 1036 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1005, 99 S.Ct. 619, 58 L.Ed.2d 682 (1978) (no distinction between visitor and inmate); United States v. Hearst, 563 F. 2d 1331, 1345 n.11 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1000, 98 S.Ct. 1656, 56 L.Ed.2d 90 (1978) (no distinction between pretrial detainee and inmate); Gettleman v. Werner, 377 F.Supp. 445, 451 (W.D.Pa.1974) (no distinction between prison guard and inmate). . Many cases exhibit a reluctance to abandon a rea…
• United States v. Orange Jell Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …tegrity of others because they claim the privilege, is totally inapposite to the defendant himself. . Our conclusion is in accord with the recent holding of the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Hearst, 563 F. 2d 1331 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1000, 98 S.Ct. 1656, 56 L.Ed.2d 90 (1978). There the court held that because the noted defendant, Patty Hearst, took the stand, she waived her fifth amendment privilege and that it was therefore not improper for the Government to ask questions eliciting…
• United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1980)
  …nanimate electronic device differs; such a device has no capability of leading the conversation into any particular subject or prompting any particular replies. See, e. g., United States v. Hearst, 563 F. 2d 1331, 1347-1348 (CA9 1977), cert. denied, 435 U. S. 1000 (1978). However, that situation is not presented in this case, and there is no occasion to treat it; nor are we called upon to pass on the situation where an informant is placed in close proximity but makes no effort to stimulate conversations about…

  ← 1 / 4 →