253 Pa. Super. 334 - Commonwealth v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
1 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Commonwealth v. Holcomb (1985), 363 Pa. Super. 328 - Commonwealth v. Grove (1987)
1 district · 39 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 · Oregon v. Mathiason · Beckwith v. United States · Time, Inc. v. Bon Air Hotel, Inc. · Orozco v. Texas
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The mere fact that a police investigation has focused on a particular person will not require Miranda warnings before police interviews with that person. (2) If the police in fact place a person in custody or restrict his freedom in any significant way prior to, or during the interview, the interrogators must advise the person of his Miranda rights. (3) A suspect may be in custody even if the police have not taken him to a police station or formally arrested him. (4) Custodial interrogation occurs when a suspect is placed in a situation in which he reasonably believes that his freedom of action of movement is restricted by such interrogation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that a police officer is part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be charged with a crime. But police officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Nor is the requirement of warnings to be imposed simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect. Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a person’s freedom as to render him ‘in custody’. It was that sort of coercive environment to which Miranda by its terms was made applicable, and to which it is limited.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“For purposes of determining when the Miranda warnings must be given, the relevant compulsion stems not from the suspect’s perceived need to attend a police-suggested interview, but from indicia of custody which lead a suspect to believe that the police will not release the interviewee until they have elicited a confession. 9 (Emphasis added).”
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.