Hawaii Supreme Court· 1/31/2006

State v. Joseph

Citations

128 P.3d 795
109 Haw. 482
2006 Haw. LEXIS 57

How courts have described this case

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

holding that there was lack of attenuation between the illegal pre-interview and the post-interview partly because the post-interview “was conducted by the same two detectives in the same interrogation room with no lapse in time between it and the pre-inter-view”
stating that whether an interrogation had transpired primarily focuses on the perceptions of the defendant
interpreting Hawaii Constitution: “Since the right to remain silent is personal, it cannot be deemed waived simply because an attorney is present during interrogation”
“Interrogation involves any practice reasonably likely to invoke an incriminating response without regard to objective evidence of the intent of the police.”
subsequent statement, made post-Miranda, was held to be a fruit of the poisonous tree
“Interrogation involves any practice reasonably likely to 3 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** invoke an incriminating response without regard to objective evidence of the intent of the police.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Moon, Acoba, Intermediate, Watanabe, Duffy, Nakayama, Levinson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this 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.