State v. Conover’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Bowers v. State (1990), Williams v. State (1996)
2 federal appellate · 39 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 · Edwards v. Arizona · Rhode Island v. Innis · Arizona v. Mauro · Jones 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The question presented by this appeal is whether the actions of the police in reading a statement of charges to the Respondent, and handing to him copies of the charging document and the application upon which it was based, constituted, under the circumstances here present, the func tional equivalent of questioning, and thereby deprived Respondent of his Fifth Amendment right to have counsel present at a custodial interrogation. ... “One of them [the police officers] read the Statement of Charges to Respondent and handed him copies of the Statement of Charges and the Application, suggesting that he ‘read them, look at them, if you have any questions ask them.’ ... Respondent then asked a number of hypothetical questions, in the vein of “what if or ‘suppose this,’ and also uttered the statement that the State later used against him at trial: ‘you can’t put me with that .38.’ ” [Alteration added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Fenner v. State · White v. State““Prior to the decision in Innis , we considered the application of Miranda to the routine processing of an arrested defendant, and concluded that: ‘There seems to be a general agreement ... that Miranda does not apply to “administrative questioning,” the routine questions asked of all arrestees who are “booked” or otherwise processed.’ Vines v. State, 285 Md. 369, 376 , 402 A.2d 900 (1979).” ... “We infer no sinister motive from the fact that police provided Respondent with a copy of the Application as well as a copy of the Statement of Charges. ... “The police acted reasonably and lawfully, and the Respondent was not subjected to compelling influences, psychological ploys, or direct questioning. His volunteered statement was properly admitted.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Once an accused, detained in a custodial setting, has asserted his right to counsel, all interrogation must cease until an attorney has been furnished to consult with him or he initiates further communication, exchange, or conversations. The rule in Miranda does not exclude every statement uttered by the accused before he is provided with counsel. `Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment....'"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. White v. State · White v. State
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.