Pedro Medina v. Harry K. Singletary, Florida Department of Corrections

How courts have described this case

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

• holding it was appropriate for an officer to ask a clarifying question in response to a defendant’s ambiguous statement concerning his right to remain silent
• stating that “not every manifestation of mental illness demonstrates incompetence to stand trial; rather, the evidence must indicate a present inability to assist counsel or to understand the charges.”
• applying Davis’s objective inquiry to determine whether suspect’s invocation of the right to remain silent was ambiguous or equivocal
• applying Davis's objective inquiry to determine whether suspect's invocation of the right to remain silent was ambigu- ous or equivocal
• declining to adopt a per se rule that “no” can never be ambiguous or equivocal
• examining events preceding a suspect’s “no” response to whether he wanted to make a statement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).