481 So. 2d 1197 - Walton v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2018
1 federal appellate · 21 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 Bruton v. United States · Edwards v. Arizona · Strouth v. Tennessee · 441 So. 2d 1083 - Livingston v. State · Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant first asserts that the trial judge erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress his two statements. Appellant acknowledges that prior to giving the statements, he had been fully advised and executed written waivers of his Miranda rights, but argues that he invoked his right to terminate questioning when he remarked, "I would like to but I don't really want to [give a statement]." Appellant contends that his subsequent statements were, therefore, obtained in violation of appellant's constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel present during questioning. The record reveals that despite repeated reminders from police that appellant had the right to remain silent, appellant's first statement resulted when he persisted in attempting to exculpate himself by suggesting to detectives that he was present at the scene of the crime but did not participate in the actual murders. We reject appellant's argument that his remark, in the context in which it occurred, is subject to the interpretation that appellant was invoking his right to silence under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). We find Edwards is not applicable under the facts of this case and that the trial judge properly admitted the challenged statements.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the primary evidence relied on by the state in the penalty phase before the jury and that the trial judge considered the confessions in sentencing appellant to death.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“does not set forth a well-grounded fear and ... fails to show the personal bias or prejudice on the part of the trial judge necessary for disqualification.”
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.