Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 484 So. 2d 543 - State v. McDevitt

484 So. 2d 543 - State v. McDevitt’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
November 2010
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 2010

6 state decisions

301985199020002010decided

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 · Johnson v. Zerbst · Edwards v. Arizona · Escobedo v. Illinois · North Carolina v. Butler

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

  1. “' 384 U.S. at 444 , 86 S.Ct. at 1612 ; in other words, the ritualistic reading of the Miranda warnings will not always, without exception, sufficiently apprise an accused of his rights. The Miranda warnings are not to be treated as `a mere textual formality to be recited on the way to eliciting a confession.' United States v. Rondon, 614 F.Supp. 667, 670 (S.D.N.Y.1985).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"`An express written or oral statement of waiver of the right to remain silent or of the right to counsel is usually strong proof of the validity of that waiver, but is not inevitably either necessary or sufficient to establish waiver. The question is not one of form, but rather whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in the Miranda case.... The courts must presume that a defendant did not waive his rights; the prosecution's burden is great ....' " North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S.Ct. 1755, 1757 , 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979). In light of McDevitt's immediate subsequent statement that he `[c]ouldn't afford one, didn't need one,' the oral `waiver' became unclear and ambiguous."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “that the implication of these facts in their totality is that McDevitt did not fully understand his right to appointed counsel.”
    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.