State v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
104 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably State v. Gallegos (2007), State v. JAVIER M. (2001)
104 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Colorado v. Connelly · Malloy v. Hogan · Moran v. Burbine · Oregon v. Elstad
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining whether [a child over the age of fifteen] knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the child’s rights, the court shall consider the following factors: (1) the age and education of the respondent; (2) whether the respondent is in custody; (3) the manner in which the respondent was advised of the respondent’s rights; (4) the length of questioning and circumstances under which the respondent was questioned; (5) the condition of the quarters where the respondent was being kept at the time of being questioned; (6) the time of day and the treatment of the respondent at the time of being questioned; (7) the mental and physical condition of the respondent at the time of being questioned; and (8) whether the respondent had the counsel of an attorney, friends or relatives at the time of being questioned.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“has two distinct dimensions. First, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of ... unfair prejudice ... or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Galindo · State v. Otto
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.