Nevels v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 2001
20 state decisions
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3501
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · State v. Gosser · Stone v. United States · 265 F. Supp. 15 - United States v. Cruz
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In dealing with statements obtained through interrogation, we do not purport to find all confessions inadmissible. Confessions remain a proper element in law enforcement. Any statement given freely and voluntarily -without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence. The fundamental import of the privilege while an individual is in custody is not whether he is allowed to talk to the police without the benefit of warnings and counsel, but whether he can be interrogated. There is no requirement that police stop a person who enters a police station and states that he wishes to confess to a crime, or a person who calls the police to offer a confession or any other statement he desires to make. Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today." 216 So.2d at 530 . (Emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In the instant case, the statements were given `freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences.' These initial admissions by defendant, as he walked toward the patrolman, in which he confessed to the crime of stealing the wire, were `volunteered statements' not barred by the Fifth Amendment. Nor do we think that the subsequent conversation of Nevels with Patrolman Langford affects the admissibility of Nevels' volunteered statements. It was substantially within another Miranda exception, general on-the-scene investigation and questioning as to facts surrounding a crime. 384 U.S. [436] at 477, 86 S.Ct. [1602] at 1629, 16 L.Ed.2d [694] at 725. To the very limited extent, if any, that it was not of this nature, it was cumulative and entirely harmless. Miss.Sup.Ct. Rule 11 (1967); see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). " State v. Gosser, 50 N.J. 438 , 236 A.2d 377 (1967), somewhat analogous to the present case, states: `The decision [ Miranda ] recognized, however, at least two exceptions. One is general on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime, and the other, statements freely volunteered without compelling influences. 384 U.S. at pp. 477-478, 86 S.Ct. at p. 1629, 16 L.Ed.2d at pp. 725-726." 216 So.2d at 531 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“State v. Gosser, 50 N.J. 438 , 236 A.2d 377 (1967), somewhat analogous to the present case, states: `The decision [ Miranda ] recognized, however, at least two exceptions. One is general on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime, and the other, statements freely volunteered without compelling influences. 384 U.S. at pp. 477-478, 86 S.Ct. at p. 1629, 16 L.Ed.2d at pp. 725-726.”
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.