Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 347 S.C. 267 - State v. Bell

State v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
December 2008
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Doyle v. Ohio · Fletcher v. Weir · United States v. Cummiskey

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

  1. “[T]here is no evidence in the record that Bell ever received Miranda warnings, and we will not presume the warnings were given at the time of arrest. See United States v. Cummiskey, 728 F.2d 200, 205 (3rd Cir.1984) (“Although nothing in the [Fletcher ] record indicated the time Miranda warnings were given, the Supreme Court did not presume that the warnings were given at the time of arrest. Accordingly, we do not believe that we are authorized to engage in such a presumption.” (citation omitted)). Although there was testimony that Bell was arrested approximately one week after the search of her apartment, her arrest alone is insufficient to implicitly induce Bell to remain silent. See Fletcher, 455 U.S. at 603 , 102 S.Ct. at 1309 . Therefore, we find no due process violation occurred as a result of the State’s cross-examination of Bell.”
    1 later decision 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.