166 Conn. App. 255 - State v. Silva’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Doyle ... 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. The court based its holding [on] two considerations: First, it noted that silence in the wake of Miranda warnings is insolubly ambiguous and consequently of little probative value. Second and more important[ly], it observed that while it is true that the Miranda warnings contain no express assurance that silence will carry no penalty, such assurance is implicit to any person who receives the warnings. In such circumstances, it would be fundamentally unfair and a deprivation of due process to allow the arrested person's silence to be used to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 178 Conn. App. 400 - State v. Ramos

2. “Once an arrestee has waived his right to remain silent, the Doyle rationale is not operative because the arrestee has not remained silent and an explanatory statement assuredly is no longer insolubly ambiguous. By speaking, the defendant has chosen unambiguously not to assert his right to remain silent. He knows that anything he says can and will be used against him and it is manifestly illogical to theorize that he might be choosing not to assert the right to remain silent as to part of his exculpatory story, while invoking that right as to other parts of his story. While a defendant may invoke his right to remain silent at any time, even after he has initially waived his right to remain silent, it does not necessarily follow that he may remain selectively silent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 178 Conn. App. 400 - State v. Ramos

3. “(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Holmes , supra, 176 Conn. App. at 188 -90 , 169 A.3d 264 . 4 A Doyle violation does not occur, however, where the defendant has not invoked his right to remain silent or has remained selectively silent. See State v. Silva , 166 Conn. App. 255 , 283-85, 141 A.3d 916 , cert. denied, 323 Conn. 913 , 149 A.3d 495 (2016).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 178 Conn. App. 400 - State v. Ramos