102 Ill. 2d 365 - People v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 29 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Q: ... If you want a lawyer and you’re unable to pay for one a lawyer will be appointed to represent you free of cost, do you understand that? A: Okay. Q: Do you wish to talk to me at this time without a lawyer being present? A: Yeah and no, uh, I don’t know tuhat’s tuhat, really. Q: Well, you either have to talk to me this time without a laujyer being present and if you do agree to talk with me without a lawyer being present you can stop at any time you want to. A: All right. I’ll talk to you then.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. James v. Marshall · 181 W. Va. 26 - State v. Bowyer

2. ““We do not believe, however, that the Supreme Court intended by this language [in Miranda v. Arizona] that every reference to an attorney, no matter how vague, indecisive or ambiguous, should constitute an invocation of the right to counsel. *** *** We hold that the officers did not violate defendant’s Miranda rights, for, in this instance, a more positive indication or manifestation of a desire for an attorney was required than was made here.” (Krueger, 82 Ill. 2d at 311-12 , 412 N.E.2d at 540 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 181 Ill. App. 3d 446 - People v. Farrell

3. “Smith's statements, considered in total, were ambiguous, and did not effectively invoke his right to counsel.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Illinois