Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2009 MT 201 - State v. Morrisey

State v. Morrisey’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
3
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

60 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably State v. Sartain (2010), State v. Couture (2010)

60 state decisions

460200920102020decided

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 · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Barker v. Wingo · Edwards v. Arizona · Rhode Island v. Innis

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

  1. “McDermott: So, anyway, these are your Miranda warnings. Scheffer: Sure. No problem. McDermott: They state you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Scheffer: So should I remain silent, or should I stand up for myself? McDermott: Tommy, let me get through this, okay, then I’ll answer any questions for you. Just let me read through this first. Scheffer: Okay. McDermott: So again, you do have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to a lawyer and have your lawyer present before this interview proceeds. If you are unable to pay for a lawyer, the court will appoint one for you at public expense before this interview continues. And should you decide to cooperate in this interview, you still have the right to stop at any time, okay, and then request to have a lawyer present with you before you participate any further. So, do you understand your rights? Scheffer: Yes. McDermott: Okay. So if you could just sign here, this is just a record. It protects you, it protects me, that I did my job and treated you right. Can you date it for me? Just put the 25th. I just want to make sure I treat you right tonight, okay? So, I do not know much about what’s going on. I’ll certainly look into some of these other things you have, but let’s just start with what happened tonight. That’s probably the best- Scheffer: Let me start here. Am I under arrest?”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a substantial portion of the delay was requested by Morrisey for the express purpose of conducting investigations, having evidence tested, locating and interviewing potential witnesses, and preparing his defense to the charges. If anything, therefore, the record suggests that Morrisey’s ability to prepare his defense was benefited, not prejudiced, by the continuances in his trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.