Michigan Supreme Court· 7/20/2000

People v. Wyngaard

Citations

614 N.W.2d 143
462 Mich. 659

How courts have described this case

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

“We confine our analysis to the Fifth Amendment because defendant has not argued that art 1, § 17 provides broader protections.”
“We confine our analysis to the Fifth Amendment because defendant has not argued that art 1, § 17 provides broader protections.”
the defendant was sanctioned at an administrative hearing for possession of marijuana and later prosecuted and convicted of possession of contraband
“We confine our analysis to the Fifth Amendment because defendant has not argued that art 1, § 17 provides broader protections.”
where defendant was incorrectly advised that his testimony would be used only for impeachment, on remand, the remedy was to have the statements used only in that way

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Weaver, Taylor, Corrigan, Young, Kelly, Cavanagh, Markman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named People v. Wyngaard

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.