Martinez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

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

1. “at the outset, we note that there is no record of Martinez’s pre-warning statements made to Officers Sosa and Hernandez or the polygraph examiner. The first two factors that the Seibert plurality found relevant in determining whether Miranda warnings delivered midstream are effective are the completeness and detail of the questions and answers in the first round of interrogation and the overlapping content of the two statements. The dissent is troubled by Martinez’s two references to the polygrapher telling him that three people were shot during the incident. Unlike Seibert , Martinez was repeating the polygrapher’s general statements regarding the crime, not his own unwarned statements. Therefore, the first two Seibert factors are not applicable in Martinez’s case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Martinez v. State

2. “Q. [DEFENSE]: Like I said, up until that time, you had never given him any indication that he didn't have to take the polygraph or talk to anybody about this offense? A. [SOSA]: I had basically asked him if he was willing to take a polygraph in regards to this incident.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Martinez v. State

3. “record was not created of the questions, statements, or results of the polygraph examination”); compare Seibert, 542 U.S. at 613 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martinez v. State