503 So. 2d 310 - Muehleman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2009 · most notably 774 So. 2d 637 - Rutherford v. Moore (2000), 525 So. 2d 833 - Grossman v. State (1988)
36 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 Terry v. Ohio · Bruton v. United States · Michigan v. Mosley · Waller v. Georgia · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Muehleman’s next claim involves an alleged violation of his sixth amendment right to counsel. He contends that fellow inmate Ronald Rewis became a state agent for the impermissible purpose of acquiring incriminating evidence which properly lay beyond the state’s reach. Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 , 106 S.Ct. 477 , 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 , 100 S.Ct. 2183 , 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). We find in this case no violation of Muehleman’s sixth amendment rights, as a review of the facts discloses that his incriminating admissions were not a product of a “ ‘stratagem deliberately designed to elicit an incriminating statement.’ ” Miller v. State, 415 So.2d 1262, 1263 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1158 , 103 S.Ct. 802 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1983) (quoting Malone v. State, 390 So.2d 338, 339 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1034 , 101 S.Ct. 1749 , 68 L.Ed.2d 231 (1981)). First, Muehleman, apparently eager to talk, approached Rewis and began to repeatedly attempt to discuss details of the crime with him. Second, after unsuccessfully attempting to dissuade Muehle-man from “talking too much,” Rewis approached the authorities on his own initiative. Bottoson v. State, 443 So.2d 962 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873 , 105 S.Ct. 223 , 83 L.Ed.2d 153 (1984); Barfield v. State, 402 So.2d 377 (Fla.1981). Third, Rewis was at that point instructed not to initiate any conversations with the suspect. Finally, no evidence exists in the record that Rewis’ effor”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Muehleman's obvious participation in this waiver represents more than the mere acquiescence in and knowledge of counsel's request which has been found sufficient in Amazon v. State, 487 So.2d 8 (Fla. 1986), and State v. Melendez, 244 So.2d 137 (Fla. 1971). Under these circumstances, Muehleman should not now be heard to argue that his absence at the charge conference prejudiced his case. We therefore find no basis for his claim that his absences violated his constitutional right to be present at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the rule against inflammatory and abusive argument by a state's attorney is clear, each case must be considered upon its own merits and within the circumstances pertaining when the questionable statements were made.”
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.