United States v. Eric Kevin Mashburn

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that pre-warning questions will not render post-warning responses involuntary and inadmissible if there was no evidence that officer’s failure to convey Miranda warnings was deliberate or intentional and that the post-warning statement was involuntarily made
• noting that because Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion set forth a narrower test than that enumerated by the plurality, that opinion \represents the holding of the Seibert Court\
• “The admissibility of postwarning state- ments is governed by Elstad unless the deliberate ‘question- first’ strategy is employed.”
• “Government agents may validly make some representations to a defendant or may discuss cooperation without rendering the resulting confession involuntary.” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Justice Kennedy’s opinion therefore represents the holding of thé Seibert Court: The admissibility of postwaming statements is governed by Elstad unless the deliberate ‘question-first’ strategy is employed.”
• in case involving pre- and postwarning statements, only voluntariness determination was reviewed de novo

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).