Dryden v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Hopkinson v. State (1981), Nehring v. Russell (1978)
34 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 · Johnson v. Zerbst · Jackson v. Denno · Fay v. Noia · Lego v. Twomey
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' quoting from State v. Clifford, 86 Iowa 550 , 53 N.W. 299 , 41 Am.St. Rept. 518. * * * * * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Mayer v. State · Jerskey v. State““No person shall be compelled to testify against himself in any criminal case * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. State · Jerskey v. State“"Without engaging in the exercise in semantics indulged in by the county sheriff, we think it is established that at the earliest possible and appropriate time the defendant indicated his desire to have the assistance and advice of counsel. Instead of then proceeding to determine whether defendant was in a financial position to obtain such counsel or would require the appointment of an attorney, the county authorities ignored the statement and proceeded with continued interrogation that resulted in highly damaging admissions by the defendant. Having again been advised of defendant's desire for counsel on the 18th the sheriff chose to interpret the defendant's remarks as not being a request for counsel and did nothing except to inform the county attorney thereof. The county attorney likewise turned a deaf ear to the request and did nothing about it until after obtaining the information he wanted when he told defendant he thought he needed an attorney and would do something about it. It was only following this conversation, and even though defendant had been brought before a justice of the peace on another charge on the 19th, that the county attorney on the 23rd caused complaint and warrant for arrest to be filed and on the 24th brought the defendant before a justice of the peace as required by Rule 5(a), W.R.Cr.P. "We hold that this failure to respond to repeated statements of the defendant that he desired counsel was a violation of defendant's constitutional rights as set for”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Daniel 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.