Powell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 2013
16 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Harris v. New York · Oregon v. Hass · Agee v. State · 360 So. 2d 1244 - Miles 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We start with two basic rules enunciated by this Court and the United States Supreme Court. The first is that a confession which in truth and in fact was not voluntary, which came about as a result of threats, physical mistreatment, or the promise of reward to make it, cannot be used at all, either in the state's case-in-chief or for impeachment purposes. We stated in Ladner v. State, 231 Miss. 445, 450 , 95 So.2d 468 (1957): ... The reasons for excluding as evidence an involuntary confession apply with equal force when the confession is offered for purposes of impeachment. The confession is just as prejudicial and just as incompetent when offered in the one as in the other. The fact that the defendant takes the stand in his own behalf does not make incompetent evidence admissible against him. In principle the State should not be permitted to make any use whatever of an involuntary confession... . On the other hand, the United States Supreme Court and this Court have held that a confession which in truth and in fact was freely and voluntarily given, but which was inadmissible as evidence on the state's case-in-chief because of a technical violation of the superstructure safeguards imposed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467-473 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1624-1627 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), could be used for impeachment purposes if the accused testified to the contrary. In Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 , 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971), the accused was given a defective Mirand”
2 later decisions 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.