State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[N]ot all restrictions on a suspect's freedom of action rise to the level of custody for Miranda purposes; in other words, the freedom-of-movement test identifies only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Miranda custody.... Rather, the ultimate inquiry is whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would believe that there was a restraint on [her] freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.... Any lesser restriction on a person's freedom of action is not significant enough to implicate the core fifth amendment concerns that Miranda sought to address.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 165 Conn. App. 110 - State v. Spence

2. “As used in ... Miranda [and its progeny], custody is a term of art that specifies circumstances that are thought generally to present a serious danger of coercion.... In determining whether a person is in custody in this sense ... the United States Supreme Court has adopted an objective, reasonable person test ... the initial step [of which] is to ascertain whether, in light of the objective circumstances of the interrogation ... a reasonable person [would] have felt [that] he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and [to] leave.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 165 Conn. App. 110 - State v. Spence

3. “Two threshold conditions must be satisfied in order to invoke the warnings constitutionally required by Miranda : (1) the defendant must have been in custody; and (2) the defendant must have been subjected to police interrogation.... [A]lthough the circumstances of each case must certainly influence a determination of whether a suspect is in custody for purposes of receiving Miranda protection, the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 165 Conn. App. 110 - State v. Spence