Whitaker v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably 2014 Ark. App. 252 - Croseford v. State (2014), Arnett v. State (2003)
30 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 · Michigan v. Mosley · Davis v. United States · Michigan v. Jackson
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A statement made while an accused is in custody is presumptively involuntary, and the burden is on the State to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a custodial statement was given voluntarily and was;knowingly and intelligently made. Lacy v. State, [ 345 Ark. 63 , 44 S.W.3d 296 (2001)]; Smith v. State, 334 Ark. 190 , 974 S.W.2d 427 (1998): A defendant may cut off questioning at any time by unequivocally invoking his right to remain silent. Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 , 96 S.Ct. 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975). When the right to remain silent is invoked, it must be “scrupulously honored.” Miranda [v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)]; Mosley, 423 U.S. at 103 , 96 S.Ct. 321 ; Hatley v. State, 289 Ark. 130, 133 , 709 S.W.2d 812, 814 (1986), Our Criminal Rules follow in this mold and provide that a police officer shall* not question an arrested person if that person indicates “in any manner” that he does not wish to be questioned. Ark. R, Crim. P. 4,5. A defendant may also waive an invocation of her right to silence. Bunch v. State, 346 Ark. 33 , 57 S.W.3d 124 (2001). Specifically, answering questions following a statement that attempts to invoke the right to remain silent may waive that right by implication, Jones v. State, 344 Ark. 682 , 42 S.W.3d 536 (2001); Bowen v. State, 322 Ark. 483 , 911 S.W.2d 555 (1995); Standridge v. State, 329 Ark. 473 , 951 S.W.2d 299 (1997). The accused may change her mind and decide to talk to law enfpr”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Coleman v. State“[H]e must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be |9a request for an attorney. If the statement fails to meet the requisite level of clarity, [the law] does not require that the officers stop questioning the suspect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fritts 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.