holding that because the defendant waived his Miranda rights, it was permissible for police to testify to any incriminating statements the defendant made as well as to his indication that he did not want to answer any further questions, and this testimony did not invite the jury to infer the defendant must therefore be guilty
Summary of this case from State v. CarterNo. 85-1304.
May 27, 1986, October TERM, 1985.
C.A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 F. 2d 928.
holding that because the defendant waived his Miranda rights, it was permissible for police to testify to any incriminating statements the defendant made as well as to his indication that he did not want to answer any further questions, and this testimony did not invite the jury to infer the defendant must therefore be guilty
Summary of this case from State v. Carterholding that because the defendant waived his Miranda rights, it was permissible for police to testify to any incriminating statements the defendant made as well as to his indication that he did not want to answer any further questions, and this testimony did not invite the jury to infer the defendant must therefore be guilty
Summary of this case from State v. Tomlinreforming unilaterally-drafted plan that contradicted pension part of CBA
Summary of this case from Armistead v. Vernitron Corp.listing citations and stating the general principle that "` statutory time period is not mandatory unless it both expressly requires an agency or public official to act within a particular time period and specifies a consequence for failure to comply with the provision'"
Summary of this case from West Virginia Human Rights Com'n v. GarretsonFull title:SPANG CO. v. DELGROSSO ET AL
Court:U.S.
Date published: May 27, 1986
Id. at n. 9. The Court did recognize the established line of Court of Appeals precedent that adopted such a…
U.S. v. Bonanno Organized Crime FamilyThe courts have recognized that organized crime families, a council of leaders of organized crime families,…