Wallace v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
110 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably 169 W. Va. 121 - State v. Persinger (1982), 725 So. 2d 1063 - Price v. State. (1998)
110 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 · Jackson v. Denno · Sims v. State of Georgia · Duncan v. State · Shadle v. State
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'true test is whether, under all the surrounding circumstances, a confession has been induced by a threat or a promise, express or implied, operating to produce in the mind of the prisoner apprehension of harm or hope of favor.' Wallace v. State , 290 Ala. 201 , 275 So.2d 634 , 636 (1973).”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cleckler v. State · Ball v. State“"Frazier's confession was not involuntary by reason of the single fact that the F.B.I. agents told him if he cooperated with them his cooperation would be made known to the United States Attorney, that there might be some consideration given by the United States Attorney but that the agents could make no promises. Standing alone this was not sufficient to establish that appellant's in-custody statement was involuntary."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[I]f a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent; that anything he said can be used against him in court; that he has the right to have counsel present at the interrogation; that if he is indigent and cannot afford to pay a lawyer the court will appoint a lawyer to represent him during the interrogation. Miranda v. State of Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 [(1966)]. See Washington v. State , 287 Ala. 289 , 251 So.2d 592 [(1971)].”
2 later decisions 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.