341 So. 2d 355 - State v. Cotton’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 1993
17 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 · Escobedo v. Illinois · Massiah v. United States · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Time, Inc. v. Bon Air Hotel, Inc.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"This record undoubtedly supports the finding of the trial judge that Cotton's statement to Robinson was free and voluntary. We do not believe that the fact that a defendant has an attorney means that law enforcement officials cannot procure a statement of any kind from him without prior notice to, if not the consent of, the attorney. United States v. Cobbs, 481 F.2d 196 (3rd Cir. 1973), cert, denied, 414 U.S. 980 , 94 S.Ct. 298 , 38 L.Ed.2d 224 (1973); United States v. Springer, 460 F.2d 1344 , (7th Cir. 1972), cert, denied, 409 U.S. 873 , 93 S.Ct. 205 , 34 L.Ed.2d 125 (1972). The court in Springer , id., held that a constitutional right such as the right to counsel may be waived, although there is a higher standard imposed to show waiver of the presence of counsel once counsel had been appointed than before. In Coughlan v. United States, 391 F.2d 371 (9th Cir. 1968), cert, denied, 393 U.S. 870 , 89 S.Ct. 159 , 21 L.Ed.2d 139 (1968), oral statements were testified to in court by police officers who interviewed the defendant in a jail interview room. The officers knew that the defendant was represented by counsel, but counsel knew nothing of the interview. As is true here, the defendant in Coughlan was fully warned, before he made any statements, of his Miranda rights; but he waived those rights. The court held that the statements made by the defendant were admissible in evidence although it further indicated disapproval, as we do here, of the practice of interviewing prisone”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.