Commonwealth v. Vuthy Seng’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 44 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The Khmer version of the rights was deficient in several key respects. The defendant was not advised of his right to remain silent. Indeed, several of the warnings implied the opposite. . . . The defendant was never advised in Khmer that anything he said could be used against him in court. . . . The final defect in the Khmer warnings was the failure to state that a lawyer would be appointed if the defendant could not afford one.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Bins

2. “in his native language, and the defendant * did not otherwise understand the English version of the warnings. The judge accordingly suppressed the custodial statements that followed. We agree that the defendant was not adequately informed of his rights in Spanish in several key respects. First, the defendant was not apprised that anything he said could be used against him in court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Vasquez

3. “As we have stated: 'The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court.' " See Vuthy Seng , 436 Mass. at 544 , 766 N.E.2d 492 , quoting Miranda , 384 U.S. at 469 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . The warning is "an absolute prerequisite to interrogation,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Vasquez