Oregon Supreme Court· 7/24/1998

State v. Meade

Citations

963 P.2d 656
327 Or. 335
1998 Ore. LEXIS 597

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that the defendant initiated further conversation that evinced a willingness and desire for a generalized discussion about the investigation
concluding that the statements following the defendant’s invocation were “the result of free, unconstrained, and informed choice” (internal quotation marks omitted)
explaining that “a lawyer’s presence at a custodial interrogation is one way to ensure the right to be free from compelled self-incrimination”
discussing rights afforded under Article I, section 12, including derivative right to assistance of counsel, in context of pre-arrest custodial interrogation
noting obligation of law enforcement to clarify equivocal invocation of derivative right to counsel under Article I, section 12
stating that, in the case of an equivocal invocation of the right to counsel where the police have followed up with clarifying questions, “the suspect may thereafter waive the right to have counsel present during that * * * interrogation” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carson, Gillette, Van Hoomissen Durham, Durham

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.