State v. Stanley’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
187 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 187 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably State v. Reynolds (2003), State v. Robinson (1993)
187 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
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. Zerbst · Edwards v. Arizona · Colorado v. Connelly · State v. Golding
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 187 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To be valid, a waiver must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, including his right to remain silent. . . . [T]he state must demonstrate: (1) that the defendant understood his rights, and (2) that the defendant's course of conduct indicated that he did, in fact, waive those rights. . . . In considering the validity of [a] waiver, we look, CT Page 4728 as did the trial court, to the totality of the circumstances of the claimed waiver. . . . The determination of [w]hether a defendant has knowingly and intelligently waived his rights under Miranda depends in part on the competency of the defendant, or, in other words, on his ability to understand and act upon his constitutional rights. . . . To determine whether an individual had the capacity to understand the warnings, the trial court may consider: the defendant's experience with the police and familiarity with the warnings, his level of education, his intelligence including his IQ, his vocabulary and ability to read and write in the language in which the warnings were given, his age, intoxication, his emotional state and the existence of any mental disease, disorder or retardation. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`one who uses a deadly weapon upon a vital part of another will be deemed to have intended the probable result of that act, and from such a circumstance a proper inference may be drawn in some cases that there was an intent to kill. . . . State v. Holley, 174 Conn. 22 , 26 , 381 A.2d 539 (1977).' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stanley, 223 Conn. 674 , 680 , 613 A.2d 788 (1992).”
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.