A 7–2 Supreme Court held that although an accused's incriminating statements could not be admitted as evidence because police had interrogated him in violation of his right to counsel, physical evidence discovered on the basis of his incriminating statements could be introduced against him if the prosecution, by a preponderance of proof, could show that such evidence would inevitably have been discovered even in the absence of accused's statements. …
Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN); August 18, 2011
The Daily Record (Baltimore); October 6, 2009
Chicago Sun-Times; November 2, 2005
The Washington Post; March 6, 1990
The Daily Record (Baltimore); January 27, 2009
Browse back issues from our extensive library of more than 6,500 trusted publications.
Help us improve our websites
Become a member of our Customer Advisory Panel. Your opinion matters!
Join the panel
