Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2005
6 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 · North Carolina v. Butler · Tague v. Louisiana · 351 So. 2d 659 - Sullivan v. State · Ex Parte Sullivan
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.
“"While all extra-judicial confessions are prima facie involuntary and can be rendered admissible only by a showing that `an express and affirmative' waiver was given, there is no set pattern or manner for a waiver. Sullivan v. State, 351 So.2d 659 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 351 So.2d 665 (Ala.1977); Lloyd v. State, 45 Ala.App. 178 , 227 So.2d 809 (1969). A waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after the warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession or admission was obtained. "Where, however, the totality of the circumstances indicates that the confession or admission was voluntary, a confession or admission will not be excluded simply because the accused did not state that he understood his rights or did not sign a written waiver. This is the import of North Carolina v. Butler, [ 441 U.S. 369 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 , 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979)]. In Sullivan v. State, [351 So.2d at 664], this court stated: "`Any clear manifestation of a desire to waive is sufficient. The test is a showing of a knowing intent, not the utterance of a shibboleth. The criterion is not solely the language but a combination of that articulation and the surrounding facts and circumstances. Lloyd, 45 Ala.App. at 184 , 227 So.2d at 814.'"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'Any clear manifestation of a desire to waive is sufficient. The test is a showing of a knowing intent, not the evidence of a shibboleth. The criterion is not solely the language but a combination of that articulation and the surrounding facts and circumstances. Lloyd v. State , 45 Ala. App. at 184 , 227 So.2d at 814 .'”
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.