State v. Navy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Justice Kennedy wrote separately, stating that while he agreed with much of the plurality opinion, he wished to emphasize that not every Miranda violation would require suppression. He explained that an exception should be made where the officer may not have realized that a suspect is in custody and therefore a warning was required, or where the officer did not plan to question the suspect at that juncture. Justice Kennedy noted that in Seibert , the two-step technique was used to deliberately avoid Miranda , using a strategy based on the assumption that Miranda warnings will mean less when given after an incriminating statement has already been made. Under these circumstances, Justice Kennedy agreed the statements must be suppressed unless “curative measures” were taken. As examples of curative actions, Justice Kennedy suggested a substantial break in time and circumstances between the pre-warning statement and the warned, or an additional warning before questioning resumes that the pre-warned statement is not admissible.”

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

2. “In [Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 , 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004) ], the Court dealt with the police practice of questioning a suspect until incriminating information is elicited, then administering Miranda warnings. Following the warnings, the suspect is again questioned and the incriminating information re-elicited. The post-warning statement is then sought to be admitted. The factors to be considered in determining whether a constitutional violation occurred in this setting, according to the Seibert plurality opinion, are: 1) the completeness and detail of the question and answers in the first round of interrogation; 2) the timing and setting of the first questioning and the second; 3) the continuity of police personnel; and 4) the degree to which the interrogator’s questions treated the second round as continuous with the first.”

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

3. “The officers began the questioning of [defendant] with knowledge that the child had been suffocated and with the intention of eliciting a confession. After [defendant]^ first oral statement, the officers “sprang” the suffocation/healing rib fractures information on [defendant], and began an unwarned custodial interrogation designed to elicit incriminating information, that is, questioning designed to have [defendant] admit to having hit the child and to having smothered him. Once those incriminating answers were given — i.e. after [defendant] admitted he had popped the child on the back and “patted” his mouth — [defendant] was permitted a supervised cigarette break, then given Miranda warnings, with interrogation by the same officer resuming immediately. Thus the four elements outlined in Seibert were met here.”

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