2013 Pa. Super. 287 - Commonwealth v. Kunkle’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
October 2022
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. Zerbst · Crawford v. Washington · Edwards v. Arizona · Ohio v. Roberts
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Statements made during custodial interrogation are presumptively involuntary, unless the accused is first advised of her Miranda rights. Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574, 579 (Pa.Super.2001), appeal denied, 569 Pa. 716 , 806 A.2d 858 (2002). Custodial interrogation is “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of [her] freedom of action in any significant way.” Miranda [v. Arizona], supra [ 384 U.S. 436 ] at 444, 86 S.Ct. [1602] at 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d [694] at 706 [ (1966) ]. ' “[T]he Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent.” Commonwealth v. Gaul, 590 Pa. 175, 180 , 912 A.2d 252, 255 (2006), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 939 , 128 S.Ct. 43 , 169 L.Ed.2d 242 (2007).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The following statements, as hereinafter defined, are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness * * * A statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition, such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health. A statement of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered or believed is included in this exception only if it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant’s will.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“she asked if she could contact an attorney” prior to being given her Miranda warnings. Id. at 1184. We concluded that the appellant’s statement was equivocal because it was not a”
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.