State v. Reid’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2003
18 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 · Lego v. Twomey · United States v. White · State v. Cullison · State v. Conner
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The defendant’s knowledge and waiver of his Miranda rights, the defendant’s age, experience, prior record, level of education and intelligence, the length of time defendant is detained and interrogated, whether physical punishment was used, including the deprivation of food or sleep, defendant’s ability to understand the questions, the defendant’s physical and emotional condition and his reaction to the interrogation, whether any deceit or improper promises were used in gaining the admissions, and any mental weakness the defendant may possess.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Vincik“The State is charged with the burden of proving the voluntariness of a defendant’s confession by a preponderance of the evidence, as a prerequisite to its admission in evidence. And, where the State is unable to sustain its burden, the defendant’s incul-patory statements and confession must be suppressed and may not be admitted into evidence. The test of voluntariness of an inculpato-ry statement or confession is ‘whether the defendant’s will was overborne by the police officers’ considering ‘the totality of the circumstances.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rhomberg“Mental subnormality on the part of one confessing to a crime does not of itself deprive the confession of voluntariness or bar its admission in evidence so long as the subnormality has not deprived the person in question of the capacity to understand the meaning and effect of the confession.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rhomberg
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.