Oregon v. Elstad
- Decided
- March 4, 1985
- Docket
- 83-773
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,824 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- ruling that failure to Mirandize a witness before his confession automatically results in exclusion of the statement's use in the prosecution's case in chief — Murray v. Earle (2005)
- holding that statements obtained in violation of Miranda are irre-buttably presumed involuntary “for purposes of the prosecution’s case in chief’ — United States v. Eric Kevin Mashburn (2005)
- ruling that failure to Mirandize a witness before his confession automatically results in exclusion of the statement's use in the prosecution’s case in chief — Murray v. Earle (2005)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to decide whether an initial failure of law enforcement officers to administer the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), without more, “taints” subsequent admissions made after a suspect has been fully advised of and has waived his Miranda rights. Respondent, Michael James Elstad, was convicted of burglary by an Oregon trial court. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, holding that respondent’s signed confession, although voluntary, was rendered inadmissible by a prior remark made in response to questioning without benefit of Miranda warnings. We granted certiorari, 465 U. S. 1078 (1984), and we now reverse.
I
Cite this
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.