Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 527 N.W.2d 804 - State v. Thaggard

State v. Thaggard’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
3
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably State v. Sapp (2004), State v. Speed (1998)

29 state decisions

130199520002010decided

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 · Colorado v. Connelly · Moran v. Burbine · Frazier v. Cupp · Bram v. United States

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

  1. “[When] the defendant seeks suppression of a confession on the ground that the confession was involuntary, the state has the burden of proving voluntariness by a fair preponderance of the evidence. * ⅜ ⅜ * The appellate court is not bound by the trial court’s determination of whether or not the confession was voluntary. Rather, its duty is to independently determine, on the basis of all factual findings that are not clearly erroneous, whether or not the confession was voluntary.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “These factors include the defendant’s age, maturity, intelligence, education, experience and ability to comprehend; the lack of or adequacy of a warning; the length and legality of the detention; the nature of the interrogation; and whether the defendant was deprived of physical needs or denied access to friends.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The key factor, however, is the fact that there is no indication that [the] defendant was led to believe that he would not be prosecuted for the rape if he confessed. The record indicates that [the] defendant may have been led to expect that he would receive treatment but he was not led to expect that the treatment would be instead of prosecution and punishment.”
    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.