Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2000 ME 55 - State v. Rees

State v. Rees’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
August 2025
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently August 2025

21 state decisions

90200020102020decided

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 · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Colorado v. Connelly · Mincey v. Arizona · Malloy v. Hogan

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

  1. “[I]n order to find a statement voluntary, it must first be established that it is the result of defendant’s exercise of his own free will and rational intellect. While a claim of compulsion will frequently be predicated upon police elicitation or conduct, that element is not a sine qua non for exclusion under the exclusionary rule inherent in the guarantee against self-incrimination. While proof that a defendant’s statement is spontaneous and unsolicited will often result in a finding of voluntariness, such proof does not compel a finding that the defendant was free from “compulsion of whatever nature.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination ... reflects a high priority commitment to the principle that excluded as available to government is any person’s testimonial self-condemnation of crime unless such person has acted ‘voluntarily’ i.e., unless he has “waived’ his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination by choosing, freely and knowingly, to provide criminal self-con,- demnation by utterances from, his own lips.”
    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.