Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ortega, 798 N.W.2d 59.

27 citing documents.

A24-1797 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
If a defendant initially agrees to speak with law enforcement without counsel, but later “makes an equivocal or ambiguous statement that could be construed as a request for counsel, investigators must cease questioning the suspect except as to ‘narrow questions designed to “clarify” the accused’s true desires respecting counsel.’” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State v. Ortega , (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)).
State of Minnesota v. Gary John Bogatz, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Gary John Bogatz, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Christopher James Colgrove Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Christopher James Colgrove Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 (1966); d 59, 71 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The measures set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966), “protect suspects from the inherently coercive nature of custodial interrogations.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The measures set forth in Miranda v. Arizona “protect suspects from the inherently coercive nature of custodial interrogations.” State v. Ortega , see also 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966).
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “nothing short of an unambiguous or unequivocal invocation of the right to remain silent will be sufficient to implicate Miranda’s protections.” The record supports the district court’s order denying Walker’s motion to suppress.
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(quotations and citations omitted).
Danny Ortega, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 98 Minn. 2014
Danny Ortega, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 98 Minn. 2014
State v. Ortega (Ortega I)
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
For purposes of this opinion, we assume without deciding that Officer Karakostas violated Davis’s right to remain silent when Kara-kostas continued to question Davis after the first time Davis said: “I don’t want to talk.” (concluding that defendant did not “unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent” in part because defendant “did not tell the agents he did not want to talk with them”).
State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
-71 (Minn.2011) (holding that the statement, “ ‘[a]m I suppose[d] to have a lawyer present?’ ” was an equivocal request for counsel); Pilcher, d at 332 (concluding the defendant made an equivocal request for counsel when he asked whether the officer thought the defendant should have an attorney).
State v. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
State v. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
See, (“To invoke the right to counsel a suspect must do more than make reference to an attorney.”) To invoke the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, suspects must likewise request the assistance of or access to counsel at a point in time when the Sixth Amendment right has attached.