People v. Mangum

3 Citing cases

  1. Applicant v. Falk

    Civil Action No. 13-cv-03102-WJM (D. Colo. Apr. 8, 2015)

    If a defendant waives these rights, his statements are admissible against him during the prosecution's case-in-chief. See People v. Mangum, 48 P.3d 568, 571 (Colo. 2002). The prosecution bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant's waiver of these rights was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

  2. Stevenson v. Timme

    Civil Action No. 12-cv-02175-WJM (D. Colo. Mar. 11, 2013)

    Once advised, however, a defendant may waive these rights. People v. Mangum, 48 P.3d 568, 571 (Colo. 2002). The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant's waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence.

  3. Self v. Milyard

    Civil Action No. 11-cv-00502-REB (D. Colo. Feb. 2, 2012)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that the defendant's statements were voluntary because they were made to police officers while they were still investigating and because the officers asking the defendant about what happened was not an interrogation

    People v. Polander, 41 P.3d 698, 705 (Colo. 2001); 1 Wayne R. LaFave & Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure ยง 6.6(c), at 556 (2d ed. 1999); see also People v. Mangum, 48 P.3d 568, 572 (Colo. 2002) (although not dispositive, use of handcuffs suggests custody).Here, Officer Reed introduced himself to Self at his home and asked Self what had happened.