Garner v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]f we were to reach the merits of [petitioner’s] constitutional claim, we necessarily would have to do so de novo, as there is no state-court decision we can look to for an evaluation of this claim. This would be inconsistent with the high level of deference to state-court decisions that Congress mandated when it passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. It would also amount to a windfall for [petitioner], who would win plenary review of a claim that he never presented to the [state] courts, whereas habeas petitioners who properly present their claims to state courts first are entitled only to the extremely narrow review mandated by [28 U.S.C.] section 2254(d).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Garner v. Mitchell

2. “assesses the examinee’s understanding of the Miranda warnings as measured by the examinee’s ability to identify whether various interpretations provided by the examiner are the same as or different from the warning that was presented. As with the CMR, the CMR-R requires that each warning be presented to the examinee. After each warning statement, the examiner asks the exami-nee to listen to three other statements, some of which are the same as the warning and some of which are not the same. The examinee simply says “same” or “different” after each alternative statement.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Garner v. Mitchell

3. “Determining whether a valid waiver of Miranda rights occurred requires a consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation as to whether statements were made knowingly and voluntarily, and whether defendant decided to forgo his rights to assistance of counsel and to remain silent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Bumgardner, 2007-T-0106 (4-11-2008)