State v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 134 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1985 · most notably Kirby v. Illinois (1972), State v. Henderson (1974)
2 federal appellate · 134 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 · Wong Sun v. United States · Gideon v. Wainwright · United States v. Wade · Stovall v. Denno
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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`The test of admissibility is whether the statement by the defendant was in fact made voluntarily.' State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69 , 150 S.E.2d 1 . See also State v. Rogers, 233 N.C. 390 , 64 S.E.2d 572 , 28 A.L.R.2d 1104 ; State v. Gosnell, 208 N.C. 401 , 181 S.E. 323 ; State v. Livingston, 202 N.C. 809 , 164 S.E. 337 . The admission is rendered incompetent by circumstances indicating coercion or involuntary action. State v. Guffey, 261 N.C. 322 , 134 S.E.2d 619 . The `totality of circumstances' under which the statement is made should be considered. State v. Chamberlain, 263 N.C. 406 , 139 S.E.2d 620 . Mental capacity of the defendant, State v. Whittemore, 255 N.C. 583 , 122 S. E.2d 396 , whether he is in custody, State v. Guffey, supra, the presence or absence of mental coercion without physical torture or threats, State v. Chamberlain, supra, are all circumstances to be considered in passing upon the admissibility of a pretrial confession and in passing upon the voluntariness of a waiver of constitutional rights."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L. ed. 2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602 , lays down the governing principle that as a constitutional prerequisite to the admissibility of statements obtained from an accused during custodial police interrogation, the suspect must be advised in unequivocal terms (1) that he has a right to remain silent; (2) that anything he says can and will be used against him in court; (3) that he has a right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer with him during interrogation; and (4) that if he is an indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. After having been so advised, a defendant may waive these constitutional rights provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Before we ask you any questions, you must understand your rights. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions, and to have him with you during questioning. You have this right to advice and presence of a lawyer even if you cannot afford to hire one. We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you if you wish, if and when you go to Court. If you wish to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering questions at any time. You also have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer.”
2 later decisions 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.