People v. Grant’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 federal appellate · 34 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In prior decisions we have held that the police cannot be said to have respected the defendant’s request for counsel when they simply readvise the defendant of his rights after he has been transported to the station house (People v. Buxton [ 44 N.Y.2d 33 , 403 N.Y.S.2d 487 , 374 N.E.2d 384 (1978)]), or when they confront him with the tearful mother of a codefendant, although they had previously afforded him an opportunity to attempt to reach an attorney and subsequently readvised him of his rights (People v. Jackson [ 41 N.Y.2d 146 , 391 N.Y.S.2d 82 , 359 N.E.2d 677 (1976)]). Here the arresting officer’s conduct was completely inconsistent with the defendant’s request because he took no steps to afford the defendant an opportunity to obtain an attorney’s assistance, and, in fact, immediately made comments which undermined the defendant’s decision to consult an attorney. In addition, unlike the circumstances in Mosley , here there was no significant break in the interrogation, and no change of parties, place or subject matter of the interrogation (see Michigan v. Mosley, supra, 423 U.S. p. 104, 96 S.Ct. 321 [at 326]). In short on this record it cannot be said that the authorities ‘scrupulously honored’ the defendant’s request for counsel before resuming the interrogation and the confession should have been suppressed.” 408 N.Y.S.2d at 435, 380 N.E.2d at 263.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Monroe · United States v. Muldoon

2. “Semantics aside there would appear to be cogent reasons for distinguishing a request for counsel from a mere refusal to answer questions. As Justice White suggests in his concurring opinion in Mosley : “the reasons to keep the lines of communication between the authorities and the accused open when the accused has chosen to make his own decisions are not present when he indicates instead that he wishes legal advice with respect thereto. The authorities may then communicate with him through an attorney. More to the point, the accused having expressed his own view that he is not competent to deal with the authorities without legal advice, a later decision at the authorities’ insistence to make a statement without counsel’s presence may properly be viewed with skepticism (Michigan v. Mosley, supra, p. 110, n. 2, 96 S.Ct. p. 329; see, also Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 405, n. 10 , 97 S.Ct. 1232 , 51 L.Ed.2d 423 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. United States v. Muldoon

3. ““after being arrested and advised of his rights, requested the assistance of counsel. Ten minutes later, without having consulted an attorney, he was readvised of his rights, waived them and made a statement because, in the interim, the arresting officer had given him a fuller ‘explanation’ or ‘understanding’ by advising him of the strength of the case against him.” 408 N.Y.S.2d at 430, 380 N.E.2d at 258.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Monroe