1 Cal. 3d 948 - People v. Randall’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
255 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 273 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2017 · most notably California v. Beheler (1983), Fare v. Michael C. (1979)
255 state decisions — followed in 11 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Escobedo v. Illinois · Jackson v. Denno · 70 Cal. 2d 522 - People v. Ireland · 68 Cal. 2d 714 - People v. Fioritto
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 273 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o strictly limit the manner in which a suspect may assert the privilege, or to demand that it be invoked with unmistakable clarity (resolving any ambiguity against the defendant) would subvert Miranda's prophylactic intent.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]ny words or conduct which 'reasonably appears inconsistent with a present willingness on the part of the suspect to discuss his case freely and completely with police at that time [fn. omitted]' [citation] must be held to amount to an invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“... The police must cease custodial interrogation immediately upon exercise of the privilege. The police did not so cease in this case, the confession obtained by the subsequent questioning was inadmissible, and, therefore, the admission of such confession was prejudicial per se and compels reversal of the judgment on all counts. [Citation.] The admission of this confession constitutes reversible error even though it was subsequently preceded by a knowing and intelligent waiver of the privilege, as we held under identical circumstances in Fioritto, Ireland and Randall, because: `After the initial assertion of the privilege, the defendant is entitled to be free of police-initiated attempts to interrogate him. Any statements made by a defendant in response to such questioning cannot be characterized as voluntary.' [Citation.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.