Castleberry v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 1997 · most notably State v. Grier (1983), Williams v. State (1975)
2 federal appellate · 24 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 Chambers v. Mississippi · Culombe v. Connecticut · Spano v. People of the State of New York · Maguire v. United States · 95 Okla. Crim. 60 - Toms 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . This Court will not disturb the trial court’s ruling permitting the introduction of a confession if supported by sufficient evidence that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights and understood the consequences of said waiver. Warren v. State, Okl. Cr, 495 P.2d 837 .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ . . . The Court finds that the defendant was fully advised of his rights under Miranda prior to his Exhibit No. 36; that he fully understood those rights, and that he voluntarily and intelligently waived these rights prior to agreeing to show where this body was; that such statements were voluntarily and intelligently made, and the acts that he performed in accordance therewith were voluntarily and intelligently done; that none of them was given or done at a time when the defendant’s will was overborne, and that each was the product of a rational intellect and a free will. In regard to these items, the Court specifically finds that there was no withdrawal from drugs affecting the defendant during this period sufficient to overbear the defendant’s will. We have a number of doctors’ statements. The doctor from the hospital at Norman indicated if he had been in withdrawal it would have shown up on the 15th when he was over there. The Court finds that the valium prescribed by Dr. McDougal, taken by the defendant at this time, during this period, shortly before this time, did not sufficiently affect the defendant’s mental processes to cause his will to be overborne or to prevent his subsequent statements, actions or omissions and acts from being the product of a rational intellect and free will. Now, that is in regard to Exhibit No. 36. “Now, in regard to Exhibit No. 37 and No. 38. This involves another Miranda warning given at 7:50 on the night of February 13th. This is after t”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fred v. State“Is the confession the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker? If it is, if he has willed to confess, it may be used against him. If it is not, if his will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired, the use of his confession offends due process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nuckols v. State
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.