State v. Mejia’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 56 state decisions

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

1. “[t]he problem of communicating Miranda rights to non-English-speaking defendants is important, particularly in a state with so diverse a population ... the Attorney General should develop appropriate bilingual Miranda warnings. In making that recommendation, we recognize that law-enforcement cannot print Miranda warnings for all linguistic minorities. But that should not prevent the State from preparing cards for the larger segments of the non-English speaking population.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 286 N.J. Super. 89 - State in Interest of JF · 408 N.J. Super. 273 - State v. Marquez

2. “4. Should the trial judge have instructed the jury that if it agreed that defendant purposely or knowingly caused death or serious bodily injury resulting in death but was divided on the question of whether the defendant’s intention was to kill or injure, it could return a verdict of guilty of non-capital murder on the basis of that non-unanimous finding?”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Cooper · State v. Harris

3. “[l]ike the 'by your own conduct' requirement, the 'intent to kill' requirement is not an element of the offense of murder [but is] merely a triggering device for the death-penalty phase of the trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Cooper · 434 N.J. Super. 502 - State of New Jersey v. Raymond E. Troxell