State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

66 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The Miranda Court also concerned itself with modern techniques of interrogation, and its discussion is directly applicable to the interrogation of Mrs. Mitchell, who was an accused defendant confronted by three police officers in the isolation of a motel room, a definite psychological advantage to the police officers, if we are to accept “ ‘that the modem practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented. As- we have stated before, “Since Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 , 60 S.Ct. 472 , 84 L.Ed. 716 , this Court has recognized that coercion can be mental as well as physical, and that the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition.” Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 206 , 80 S.Ct. 274, 279 , 4 L.Ed.2d 242 (1960). Interrogation still takes place in privacy. Privacy results in secrecy and this in turn results in a gap in our knowledge as to what in fact goes on in the interrogation rooms’ 384 U.S. [436] at 448, 86 S.Ct. [1602] at 1614 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ] (emphasis added). “ ‘The officers are told by the manuals that the “principal psychological factor contributing to a successful interrogation is privacy — being alone with the person under interrogation.” The efficacy of this tactic has been explained as follows. “ ‘ “If at all practicable, the interrogation should take place in the investigator’s office or at least in a room of his own choice. The subject should be deprived of every psychological ad”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Calegar

2. “1.You have the right to remain silent. 2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. 3. You have the right to a lawyer from the time you are arrested throughout your entire Court proceedings. 4. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present while you are being questioned. 5. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning begins if you wish. 6. If you answer any question now without a lawyer present you can stop at any time until a lawyer is present, or refuse to answer any questions until a lawyer is present. I have read the above statement of my rights and hereby acknowledge that I have received and understand them, at the time and place so stated, and that I desire to make a statement at this time to the above referenced officer. I do not want a lawyer present at this time. No promises or threats have been made and no pressure of any kind has been used against me.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gord

3. ““It is obvious that such an interrogation environment is created for no purpose other than to subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner. This atmosphere carries its own badge of intimidation. To be sure, this is not physical intimidation, but it is equally destructive of human dignity. The current practice of incommunicado interrogation is at odds with one of our Nation’s most cherished principles — that the individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself. Unless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surrounding, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.” 384 U.S. at 457-58 , 86 S.Ct. at 1618-19 (qqemphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Calegar