19 Utah 2d 216 - State v. Ruggeri’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably State v. Iverson (1971), Renn v. Utah State Board of Pardons (1995)
30 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 · Escobedo v. Illinois · State v. Young · State v. Faulkner · People v. Steuding
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An ordinary witness before a grand jury must give testimony except where it might incriminate him for some past misdeed, but he can’t refuse to testify on the ground that if he commits perjury, he would be subjected to incrimination. All witnesses as such must give testimony regarding any matter of which they have knowledge, which testimony is not privileged and is relevant to the matter under investigation by the grand jury, except where the testimony might tend to incriminate the witness for some past act. “However, one being investigated for crime is not just a witness and cannot be treated as such. The target of an investigation is an accused within the meaning of the Constitution, and when he is detained in any significant way, he may not be interrogated unless he is advised of the charges against him then under consideration. To fail to so warn one so being investigated is to entrap him and to violate his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.” State v. Ruggeri, 19 Utah 2d 216 , 429 P.2d 969, 973 (1967).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Perry“It would seem that a witness who is unaware that he is a target of a grand jury investigation could not intelligently determine whether or not he needed counsel unless he was fully advised of the charges being considered against him; and until he has full knowledge regarding that matter, he will not know when to assert his constitutional claim of privilege against self-incrimination. It would also be difficult to believe that he could intelligently waive the right to counsel under such circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pinkerton v. State“'[T]he granting a writ [of mandamus] is always a matter of discretion with this court and never a matter of right on behalf of the applicant.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Stirba
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.