Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 215 N.C. App. 588 - State v. James

215 N.C. App. 588 - State v. James’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Illinois v. Allen · Alaska v. Babbitt · State v. Braswell · Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd.

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

  1. “[T]he Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. That is to say, the term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police. This focus reflects the fact that the Miranda safeguards were designed to vest a suspect in custody with an added measure of protection against coercive police practices, without regard to objective proof of the underlying intent of the police. A practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect thus amounts to interrogation. But, since the police surely cannot be held accountable for the unforeseeable results of their words or actions, the definition of interrogation can extend only to words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “visual identification testimony would be inadmissible because testimony identifying a controlled substance 'must be based on a scientifically valid chemical analysis and not mere visual inspection'”
    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.