Mauppin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

76 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. “In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467 (1966), the Court recognized that custodial interrogation inherently produces ‘compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely.’ To neutralize this inherent compulsion and give true meaning to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the Court in Miranda imposed a clear standard for police to follow in dealing with an accused. Before questioning an accused, the police must fully apprise the suspect of the State’s intention to use his statements to secure a conviction and must inform him of his rights to remain silent and to have counsel, if he desires. Id. at 468-70 . A waiver of these rights is valid only if it is made ‘voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.’ Id. at 444 . An incriminating statement obtained on the basis of a waiver must be excluded unless the State establishes to the satisfaction of the trial court by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiver was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently given. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 168 (1986). The inquiry into waiver has two distinct dimensions. Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (1987); Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986). ‘First, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception.’ Moran at 421 . ‘Involuntary confession’ jur”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Duncan v. State · Rushing v. State

2. “|3“Ex post facto” literally means a law passed after the fact. That is, after the occurrence of the fact, or the crime. The constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws is a limitation upon the powers of the legislature and does not of its own force apply to the judicial branch. However, the principle on which the clause is based, the notion that persons have a right to fair warning of that conduct which will give rise to criminal penalties, is fundamental to our concept of constitutional liberty, and as such, is protected against judicial action by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 , 97 S.Ct. 990 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977). Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that an unforeseen judicial enlargement of a criminal statute, applied retrospectively, operates precisely like an ex post facto law that is prohibited by Article I, § 10 of the Constitution of the United States, and it follows that such an interpretation is barred by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from achieving precisely the same result by judicial construction.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Green v. State · 82 Ark. App. 84 - Cousins v. State

3. “(c)(1) On the court’s own motion or upon application of the department, the prosecuting attorney, or the defendant, and after a hearing if a hearing is requested, if the court determines that the defendant has regained fitness to proceed, the criminal proceeding shall be resumed. (2) However, if the court is of the view that so much time has elapsed since the alleged commission of the offense in question that it would be unjust to resume the criminal proceeding, the court may dismiss the charge.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thomas