Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 47 Ala. App. 677 - Bedingfield v. State

47 Ala. App. 677 - Bedingfield v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
2
states following
October 2010
most recently cited

76 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently October 2010 · most notably 48 Ala. App. 688 - Veith v. State (1972), 397 So. 2d 217 - Terry v. State (1981)

76 state decisions

34019721980199020002010decided

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 · Jackson v. Denno · Ohio v. Hymore · Guenther v. State · Truex v. State

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

  1. ““. . . It is therefore apparent that the issue here is not the necessity of a warning prior to questioning, but its necessity before a spontaneous declaration-may be received in evidence. Although we have not heretofore considered this question, our research discloses several cases in which other courts have done so. All agree that Miranda does not require police to interrupt a suspect in the process of making a spontaneous statement in order to warn him of his constitutional rights, and that a statement made in the absence of any questioning is not inadmissible by virtue of the failure to give such warning. Ballay v. People, [ 160 Colo. 309 ] 419 P.2d 446, 449 ; United States v. Cruz, (W.D.Tex.) 265 F.Supp. 15, 20 ; Diaz v. United States, (E.D.La.) 264 F.Supp. 937, 945 ; People v. Jones, 244 Cal.App.2d 378 , 52 Cal.Rptr. 924, 926 ; see also State v. Hymore, 9 Ohio St.2d 122 , 224 N.E.2d 126, 129 .) In our opinion, these decisions are correct. In Miranda , the majority makes clear that its requirement is directed solely toward warnings prior to in-custody interrogation, for, during the course of the opinion, it said ( 384 U.S. at 478 , 86 S.Ct. at 1630 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 726 ): ‘In dealing with statements obtained through interrogation, wc do not purport to find all confessions inadmissi ble. Confessions remain a proper element in law enforcement. Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence. The fundamental i”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.