Whitfield v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

78 state decisions

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

1. “when and where it occurred, how long it lasted, how many police were present, what the officers and the defendant said and did, the presence of actual physical restraint on the defendant or things equivalent to actual restraint such as drawn weapons or a guard stationed at the door, and whether the defendant was being questioned as a suspect or as a witness. Facts pertaining to events before the interrogation are also relevant, especially how the defendant got to the place of questioning whether he came completely on his own, in response to a police request or escorted by police officers. Finally, what happened after the interrogation whether the defendant left freely, was detained or arrested may assist the court in determining whether the defendant, as a reasonable person, would have felt free to break off the questioning.”

   14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Thomas · Aguilera-Tovar v. State

2. “[CJustody occurs if a suspect is led to believe, as a reasonable person, that he is being deprived or restricted of his freedom of action or movement under pressures of official authority. * * * [T]he custody requirement of Miranda does not depend on the subjective intent of the law enforcement officer-interrogator but upon whether the suspect is physically deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way or is placed in a situation in which he reasonably believes that his freedom of action or movement is restricted by such interrogation. * * *”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Rucker · 62 Md. App. 603 - Hamilton v. State

3. ““Once such custody is established, a court must still determine whether an ‘interrogation’ took place before a violation of Miranda exists. ‘Interrogation,’ like ‘custody,’ is not easily defined, although in its usual sense, it ‘refers to police questioning designed to elicit a response from a suspect.’ Lederer, [Miranda v. Arizona — The Law Today,] 78 Mil.L.Rev. [107,] 134 [(1977)]. Of course, not questioning by law enforcement officials of one in custody is tantamount to an interrogation in the Miranda sense. See Vines v. State, 285 Md. 369, 375-76 , 402 A.2d 900, 903-04 (1979). For example, in a recent opinion by Judge Orth, this Court noted: ‘There seems to be general agreement ... that Miranda does not apply to “administrative questioning,” the routine questions asked of all arrestees who are “booked” or otherwise processed.’ Id. at 376, 402 A.2d at 904 . However, except for this type of questioning, if custody is found to exist, then any examination likely to lead to incriminating statements will be a ‘Miranda interrogation.’ ” 287 Md. at 142-43 , 411 A.2d 415 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Conover · Bowers v. State