482 So. 2d 1147 - Merrill v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In his voluntariness determination, the trial judge must first determine whether the accused, prior to the confession understood (a) the content and substance of the Miranda warnings, and (b) the nature of the charges of which he was accused with respect to which he was under investigation. * * * * * * Not one of [our] cases announces a per se rule. They stand collectively for the proposition that the mental abilities of an accused are a factor — but only one factor — to be considered. When all of the facts and circumstances of the particular confession and interrogation leading up to it are considered — including the accused's abilities — the trial judge must find as a fact whether the confession was intelligently and voluntarily made. That fact-finding will not be disturbed here unless we find it clearly erroneous.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 534 So. 2d 194 - Smith v. State

2. “With respect to subnormal intelligence and educational level, this Court has held that mental weakness in and of itself will not invalidate a confession unless it has shown that the weak minded person has been over reached. Williamson v. State, 330 So.2d 272, 276 (Miss.1976). In each case, the totality of the circumstances must be considered to determine whether the mentally deficient defendant has been exploited. Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743 (Miss.1984).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. State