113 Ill. App. 3d 305 - People v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2012
9 state decisions
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 Edwards v. Arizona · 54 Ill. 2d 280 - People v. Pickett · 92 Ill. 2d 545 - People v. Weaver · 82 Ill. 2d 305 - People v. Krueger · 60 Ill. 2d 37 - People v. Bailey
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here, Smith had not even been given the full Miranda warnings when he stated that he would like an attorney. Although Smith's statement, taken out of context, appears clear and unequivocal, when it is considered with other statements--as it should be--it is clear that Smith was undecided about exercising his right to counsel.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Yeah and no, uh, I don't know what's what really”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Q. Steve, I want to talk with you in reference to the armed robbery that took place at McDonald’s Restaurant on the morning of the 19th. Are you familiar with this? A. Yeah. My cousin Greg was. Q. Okay. But before I do that I must advise you of your rights. Okay? You have a right to remain silent. You do not have to talk to me unless you want to do so. Do you understand that? A. Uh. She told me to get my lawyer. She said you guys would railroad me. [The court reporter recorded the name as ‘Chico’ rather than ‘she’ when the tape was played to the jury The transcript of the interrogation that was admitted into evidence referred to ‘she.’ The apparent discrepancy in names has not been discussed by the litigants, and is not germane to the resolution of this appeal.] Q. Do you understand that as I gave it to you, Steve? A. Yeah. Q. If you do want to talk to me I must advise you that whatever you say can and will be used against you in court. Do you understand that? A. Yeah. Q. You have a right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer present with you when you’re being questioned. Do you understand that? A. Uh, yeah. I’d like to do that. Q. Okay. 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 what’s what, really. Q. Well. You either have to talk to me this time without a law”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.