United States v. Jose Ramirez-Estrada

How courts have described this case

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

• reviewing de novo whether Doyle was violated when the prosecutor used the defendant’s silence during routine booking questions, after the defendant had invoked his right to remain silent, to impeach the defendant
• reviewing de novo whether Doyle was violated when the prosecutor used the defendant’s silence during routine booking questions, after the defendant had invoked his right to remain silent, to impeach the defendant
• The defendant’s “statements, by themselves, are not directly inconsistent with his testimony. It is only what he omitted from his 13 statements — in other words, his silence — that was relevant to impeach him.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).