Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 Wash. 2d 462 - State v. Stewart

113 Wash. 2d 462 - State v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2017 · most notably McNeil v. Wisconsin (1991), 585 So. 2d 660 - Willie v. State (1991)

44 state decisions — followed in 11 states

2701989199020002010decided

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 · United States v. Wade · Edwards v. Arizona · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Malloy v. Hogan

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

  1. “In the end, we hold Stewart's Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach on these burglary charges until months after his confessions. He did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel when he requested an attorney at an arraignment on an unrelated charge. The Fifth Amendment right to counsel exists solely to guard against coercive, and therefore unreliable, confessions obtained during in-custody interrogation, which was not occurring at the time Stewart requested counsel. Subsequently, prior to giving his confession, Stewart was given Miranda warnings and did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right at that time. There has been no showing of confusion on the part of the defendant, nor trickery on the part of the State. Extension of the Edwards rule to this fact scenario would constitute a misapplication of that prophylactic rule.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Where an in-custody defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is invoked at arraignment, but the defendant has not yet met with counsel, is the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to counsel violated when police interrogate the defendant on unrelated charges, procure a Miranda waiver, and obtain a confession?”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “`[t]o find that [the defendant] invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel on the present charges merely by requesting the appointment of counsel at his arraignment on the unrelated charge is to disregard the ordinary meaning of that request.'”
    1 later decision 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.