369 So. 2d 833 - Garrett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 state decisions

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

1. “[I]n most cases, the defendant's mental deficiency will be but one factor to be considered in the 'totality of the circumstances' surrounding the confession. In some cases, however, it may be the most important or controlling factor. See e.g. Dover v. State , 227 So.2d 296 (Miss. 1969); People v. Langston , 57 Mich. App. 666 , 226 N.W.2d 686 (1975). See also Redwine v. State , 258 Ala. 196 , 61 So.2d 724 (1952). The importance of this factor increases with the degree of the accused's mental retardation because he must be able to understand his right to remain silent and to an attorney before he can waive them. It is a knowing and intelligent waiver that is required. Miranda v. State of Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 540 So. 2d 740 - Ex Parte Brown · 372 So. 2d 885 - Joshua v. State

2. “[a]lthough such a degree of mental retardation in a given case may be controlling, we need not so hold here because we find from the totality of the circumstances that the confession was involuntary.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 540 So. 2d 740 - Ex Parte Brown · 384 So. 2d 1171 - Hines v. State

3. “"In this case we have a juvenile defendant who is mentally retarded to the point that he was classified by his teachers as trainable, but not educable. That he can only be trained to take care of his daily needs. According to the teachers, he could not remember his class schedule from day to day. Nor could he understand any abstract words. For example, if Garrett were told he had a right to remain silent, he would not have understood what the word `right' meant and would probably would not have understood what the words `remain' or `silent' meant. Two teachers testified that they did not believe Garrett would have understood the Miranda warnings. One of them testified Garrett would have said he understood the warnings, regardless of whether he did or not, in order to please the interrogator."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thomas v. State