People v. Cowart

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant was not in custody in part because the officer spoke with him in a conversational tone
• concluding that even though the defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated, “there was no outrageous government conduct”
• concluding that this court had jurisdiction over a C.A.R. 4.l(a) interlocutory appeal when the trial court's prohibition of certain testimony could only have been viewed as an order, pursuant to Crim. P. 41(g
• reasoning that defendant was not in custody based in part on fact that marshal conducted the interview in a \conversational tone\
• noting that the lack of physical restraint suggested that the defendant was not in custody
• stating that the officer’s conversational tone and the fact that he did not raise his voice convinced the court that the defendant was not in custody

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).