State v. Innis’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2007 · most notably Rhode Island v. Innis (1980), Whalen v. United States (1980)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 13 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 · Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Blockburger v. United States
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. * * * If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Crisler“The defendant, alone in a police wagon with three officers at 4 a. m., underwent the same psychological pressures which moved Williams to lead police to the body of his victim. Police officers in such a situation must not be permitted to achieve indirectly, by talking to one another, a result which the Supreme Court has said they may not achieve directly by talking to a suspect who has been ordered not to respond. The same ‘subtle compulsion’ exists. . we believe that defendant was interrogated within the meaning of Miranda in the absence of counsel after requesting to see an attorney. 391 A.2d at 1162 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Berry
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.