Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 130 CONNAPP 607 - State v. Lee-Riveras

State v. Lee-Riveras’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · North Carolina v. Alford · Doyle v. Ohio · State v. Golding · Castor 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[w]e set forth the legal principles that guide our analysis [of the defendant's claims] and our standard of review. In Doyle [v. Ohio , supra, 426 U.S. at 610 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 ] ... the United States Supreme Court held that the impeachment of a defendant through evidence of his silence following his arrest and receipt of Miranda warnings violates due process. ... Likewise, our Supreme Court has recognized that it is also fundamentally unfair and a deprivation of due process for the state to use evidence of the defendant's post- Miranda silence as affirmative proof of guilt .... Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. ... Because it is the Miranda warning itself that carries with it the promise of protection ... the prosecution's use of [a defendant's] silence prior to the receipt of Miranda warnings does not violate due process. ... Therefore, as a factual predicate to an alleged Doyle violation, the record must demonstrate that the defendant received a Miranda warning prior to the period of silence that was disclosed to the jury. ... The defendant's claim raises a question of law over which our review is plenary.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[e]vidence of a defendant's postarrest silence is inadmissible under the principles of the law of evidence ... a defendant must seasonably object and take exception to an adverse ruling in order to obtain appellate review of his claim of error in this respect.”
    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.