149 Mich. App. 653 - People v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Under current practice, inmates must make a "Catch 22" choice. They can either testify at the prison disciplinary hearing and incriminate themselves or forego the right to offer exculpatory or mitigating statements and face the potential penalties for prison misconduct based on evidence which they cannot refute or explain.... But if an inmate's statements at the disciplinary hearing can be used against him in a subsequent criminal trial, it is likely that such statements will be withheld from the administrative hearing examiner for fear of being used against the inmate at a later time. The inmate ... is forced to forego a valuable defense. This constitutes an impermissible penalty for the exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination. Even the Department of Corrections Hearing Handbook states that, while Miranda warnings are not required, no statement made by a prisoner at the prehearing interrogative stage or at formal hearings is admissible at a subsequent criminal proceeding. [ Carr, supra at 658-659 , 386 N.W.2d 631 . Citation omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 226 Mich. App. 681 - People v. Wyngaard

2. “[A]ny evidence derived from testimony at a disciplinary hearing is inadmissible at subsequent criminal proceedings on the underlying charge, save for impeachment or rebuttal, and the accused must be advised before testifying at the disciplinary hearing that his testimony will not be admissible against him at a subsequent criminal trial on the underlying offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 226 Mich. App. 681 - People v. Wyngaard

3. “`if inmates are compelled in those proceedings to furnish testimonial evidence that might incriminate them in later criminal proceedings, they must be offered "whatever immunity is required to supplant the privilege”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 226 Mich. App. 681 - People v. Wyngaard