People v. Hardiway

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that defendant’s post - Miranda statements or subsequent silence were not impeachable where the defendant’s testimony elaborated on, but did not contradict, her limited post- Miranda statements to police
• concluding that defendant’s post - Miranda statements or subsequent silence were not impeachable where the defendant’s testimony elaborated on, but did not contradict, her limited post- Miranda statements to police
• recognizing that later statements can augment the original statement and observations, and in those cases, “the prior [omission] is often simply too ambiguous to” be considered sufficiently inconsistent for the purposes of impeachment
• “ Prosecutorial comment that creates an inference of guilt by referring to the defendant ’ s silence 8 during custodial interrogation effectively penalizes the defen dant for exercising a constitutional privilege. ”
• “ Prosecutorial comment that creates an inference of guilt by referring to the defendant ’ s silence 8 during custodial interrogation effectively penalizes the defen dant for exercising a constitutional privilege. ”
• a prosecutor may impeach a defendant who omits “significant details from an initial statement” but testifies to those details at trial (citing People v. 18 Quintana, 665 P.2d 605, 610 n.7 (Colo. 1983)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).