State v. Aguirre’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The rules governing an accused’s constitutional rights during a custodial interrogation are well established: ‘The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right against self-incrimination, including the right to have a lawyer present during custodial interrogation and the right to remain silent.’ State v. Walker, 276 Kan. 939, 944 , 80 P.3d 1132 (2003) (citing Miranda[ v. Arizona], 384 U.S. [436,] 479[, 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)]). Moreover, in Kansas, ‘[n]o person shall be a witness against himself [or herself].’ Kan. Const. Bill of Rights, § 10. ‘[A] suspect’s invocation of his or her right to remain silent must be scrupulously honored and cuts off further interrogation elicited by express questioning or its functional equivalent.’ State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54, 69-70 , 183 P.3d 801 (2008) (citing State v. Carty, 231 Kan. 282, 286 , 644 P.2d 407 [1982]). [[Image here]] “... The argument is founded upon a long-standing rale of law: If a suspect invokes the right to remain silent during questioning, that interrogation must cease. Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 100 , 96 S. Ct. 321 , 46 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1975) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 473-74 ). Thereafter, ‘the admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on whether his “right to cut off questioning” was “scrupulously honored.’” Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104 . “More recently, law enforcement’s duty to scrupulously honor a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Walker

2. “When reviewing a district court's decision on a motion to suppress, we bifurcate our analysis, first assessing whether the factual findings below are supported by substantial competent evidence and then applying a de novo standard to the ultimate legal conclusion to be drawn from those facts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Keenan

3. “was a case where the interrogators simply refused to scrupulously honor the suspect's right to cut-off questioning but instead coerced the suspect to continue the interrogation until they had the confession they sought.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Aguirre