Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 288 NJSUPER 139 - State v. Mallon

State v. Mallon’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
June 2008
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Michigan v. Mosley · Davis v. United States · Oregon v. Bradshaw

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

  1. “[W]here the right to remain silent is invoked, an inquiry must be made as to the scrupulous honoring of that invocation. . . . It is only if these rights have not been exercised, that the State then has just the "heavy but lesser burden" of demonstrating a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver. See State v. Hartley, supra, 103 N.J. at 260-61 , 511 A. 2d 80 ; State v. Kennedy, 97 N.J. 278, 286 , 478 A. 2d 723 (1984). And see Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 , 103 S.Ct. 2830 , 77 L.Ed. 2d 405 (1983). We first consider defendant's invocation of his right to remain silent. Once that has been asserted, it must be "scrupulously honored." Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 102-03 , 96 S.Ct. 321, 325-26 , 46 L.Ed. 2d 313, 320-21 (1975); Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. at 467 , 86 S.Ct. at 1624 , 16 L.Ed. 2d at 719 ; State v. Johnson, 120 N.J. 263, 282 , 576 A. 2d 834 (1990); State v. Fuller, 118 N.J. 75, 81 , 570 A. 2d 429 (1990); State v. Bey (I), 112 N.J. 45, 66 , 548 A. 2d 846 (1988); State v. Hartley, supra, 103 N.J. at 260-61 , 511 A. 2d 80 ; State v. Kennedy, supra, 97 N.J. at 288 , 478 A. 2d 723 . Further, in Hartley , the Supreme Court cautioned that: [c]are must be taken . . . that there be no blurring of the separate lines of analysis that are followed in respect of the "scrupulously honor" requirement on the one hand and the waiver issue on the other. The distinction between the two concepts stands out in bold relief in this case: given our holding that the failure ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.