State v. Neville’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
1 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2002 · most notably Superintendent Massachusetts Correctional Institution Walpole v. Hill (1985), Massachusetts v. Upton (1984)
1 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Schmerber v. State of California · South Dakota v. Neville · Herb v. Pitcairn Belcher v. Louisville & N.R. Co · Clark v. State · 21 Cal. 3d 231 - People v. Pettingill
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lanier · State v. Meek“Inherent, however, in this constitutional protection against self-incrimination and also the protection of due process is the requirement that an arresting officer must fully inform a defendant driver of the consequences of a refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test. Below, the arresting officer informed Neville of the Miranda warnings but then only partially informed him of the consequences attendant to the refusal of the request for submission to a blood-alcohol test. The arresting officer did not warn Neville that the test results could be used against him at trial. In its brief, State admits that "the Defendant should have been warned that his refusal could be used as evidence in a subsequent DWI trial ..." but argues that this failure did not violate Neville's due process rights. We disagree. The very consequence of which the arresting officer failed to warn Neville is that consequence which the State now seeks to impose. Since Neville was not fully informed of this consequence, he did not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional protection of due process and prohibition against self-incrimination. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's holding that Neville's refusal to submit to the blood-alcohol test is inadmissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If a defendant produces self-incriminating evidence to escape unwarranted consequences, that evidence is considered compelled and thus constitutionally inadmissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Meek
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.