Experimental. Doctrines is a new Annlex feature, starting with four areas: Self-incrimination, Brady, Terry and Miranda. Each page collects what courts have said about a leading case, quoted from the opinions that cite it. Annlex Chat uses these collections to help find relevant cases; what a case holds still comes from its opinion. We'd like to hear what's useful, missing or wrong: Send feedback
Scrupulously-Honored Standard for Questioning After Invocation of Right to Remain Silent
Leading case
Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975)
How courts have described it
explaining that once a defendant has invoked his right to remain silent, that right must be “scrupulously honored”
Anderson v. Terhune (9th Cir. 2008)
distinguishing right to remain silent and right to counsel, setting down guidelines for right to remain silent
United States v. Tam Wai-Keung, 845 F. Supp. 1548 (S.D. Fla. 1994)
discussing admissibility of custodial statements obtained after a person invokes their right to remain silent
State v. Pauldo, 844 S.E.2d 829 (Ga. 2020)
explaining that Miranda requires exercise of right to remain silent to be scrupulously honored
State v. Yohnnson, 6 A.3d 963 (N.J. 2010)
stating that police may resume their questioning of a suspect outside the presence of counsel after the suspect’s assertion of the right to remain silent
State v. Yoh, 910 A.2d 853 (Vt. 2006)
invoking Fifth Amendment right to remain silent does not "create a per se proscription of indefinite duration upon any further questioning by any police officer on any subject"
Peterka v. State, 640 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1994)
requiring police to "scrupulously honor[]" a defendant's invocation of his or her right to remain silent
discussing that, when a defendant claims a statement was taken in violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, an examination of the circumstances surrounding the statement is required
Commonwealth v. Dewitt, 54 Va. Cir. 439 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2001)
About this page
The quotations above are from court opinions that cite the leading case, in each court's own words. The heading is a short label Annlex generated from those quotations. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not legal advice.