544 So. 2d 310 - Martinez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “"[T]he defendant was fully advised as to his rights with regard to Miranda Escobedo with regard to his right to have an attorney that, in fact, an attorney would be provided to him if he was unable to obtain one because of lack of funds, that he did have a right to remain silent, that he did have the right to have an attorney, that anything he said could be used against him, the record is overwhelming on that. ... I find that he did understand what his rights were and he did effectively waive them. ... Now, turning to the fourth rendition of the — of his Miranda Escobedo rights, I find that there may have been a technical omission on the part of [the officer], but based on the totality of the circumstances, including the first three waivers, the first three times he was informed of his rights, and then the method in which [the officer] scrupulously attempted to insure that he did understand, I find that that was an adequate warning and I'm very out of patience that indicates that it is not necessary for law enforcement to parrot exact magic words. The substance of the warning given by [the officer] to the defendant for this fourth time was sufficient. I therefore find that based on the documentary evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, the plausibility of the testimony of all of the witnesses, the defendant made a voluntary statement .. . and ... made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights and, therefore, the motion for the suppression of the s”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 564 So. 2d 1071 - Martinez v. State

2. “[Martinez's] statement could be deemed to show that he did not comprehend his right to counsel even though he had been advised at least three times that he would be appointed counsel if he could not afford the cost of legal representation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 564 So. 2d 1071 - Martinez v. State

3. “could conclude from this record that the defendant's query could not reasonably be construed as a request for counsel, that he did understand his rights, and that he wanted to proceed at that time to repeat his confession.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 564 So. 2d 1071 - Martinez v. State