199 Wis. 2d 227 - State v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably 201 Wis. 2d 219 - State v. Sanchez (1996), 212 Wis. 2d 460 - State v. Kiekhefer (1997)
48 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 Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · Gideon v. Wainwright
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our task is to examine the erroneously admitted evidence and the remainder of the untainted evidence in context to determine whether the error was harmless.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The primary flaw in the State’s argument is the failure to distinguish between violation of a procedure (informing an accused of his rights) and violation of a right (the right to have counsel present during interrogation). The procedure required under Miranda is that warnings must be given prior to custodial interrogation, while the procedure required by Edwards is that once a suspect invokes the right to counsel, all police-initiated questioning must cease until counsel is present. With the former, it is possible to act in a manner that is violative of the safeguard but not of the rights it seeks to protect; this is not possible with conduct that violates Edwards. A violation of Edwards is a violation of the right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Osburn v. State“following an assertion of the [Fifth Amendment] right to counsel, police-initiated interrogation renders purported waivers ineffective and thus statements so obtained are inadmissible as substantial evidence in the prosecution's case-in-chief even if preceded by a purported waiver.”
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.