Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 432 NW2D 60 - State v. Boykin

State v. Boykin’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
May 2001
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Bruton v. United States · United States v. Agurs · Rhode Island v. Innis

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. “‘Pretrial publicity alone is not enough to deny [a defendant] a fair trial or, in other words, to warrant a change of venue.’ [citations omitted] Qualified jurors may have some knowledge of the facts and issues involved without burdening a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights, [citations omitted] Boykin has not shown unfair press coverage, and failed to transcribe the voir dire of potential jurors. A public opinion survey authorized by the trial court was also not preserved in this record by Boykin. As voir dire is the better forum for ascertaining the existence of hostility towards the accused [citation omitted] and no record exists for us to review, we cannot conclude that Boykin has suffered any prejudice. Appellant, as the party claiming error, had the responsibility to insure that a record was made, [citation omitted] The settled record is the sole evidence of the circuit court’s proceedings and, when confronted with an incomplete record, our presumption is that the circuit court acted properly.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “that the police should know [is] reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect.... [T]he definition of interrogation can extend only to words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.