Anderson v. Charles

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that inconsistent post -Miranda statements could be used against a defendant despite prohibition on use of silence, because regarding “the subject matter of his statements, the defendant has not remained silent at all”
• stating that “[a]s to the subject matter of his statements, the defendant has not remained silent at all”
• holding prohibition against “impeachment on the basis of a defendant’s silence following Miranda warnings .... does not apply to cross-examination that merely inquires into prior inconsistent statements”
• questions about post‐ Miranda silence permissible to “elicit an explanation for a prior inconsistent statement”
• “[i]n Doyle, we held that the Due Process Clause ... prohibits impeachment on the basis of a defendant’s silence following Miranda warnings”
• “Doyle does not apply to cross- examination” into or commentary about “prior inconsistent statements.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).