Montemayor v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
9 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 185th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Oregon v. Elstad · Michigan v. Tucker · Clewis 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” ... does not apply to mere violations of the prophylactic requirements in Miranda: while the statement taken in violation of Miranda must be suppressed, other evidence subsequently obtained as a result of that statement (i.e. the “fruits” of the statement) need not be suppressed. Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 483 , 452, 94 S.Ct. 2857 , 41 L.Ed.2d 182 ... (1974); Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 314, 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 ... (1985). The rule ... requires suppressing the fruits of a defendant’s statement only when the statement was obtained through actual coercion. Tucker, 417 U.S. at 448-449 , 94 S.Ct. at 2365-67 ; Elstad, 470 U.S. at 314 , 105 S.Ct. at 1296 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Marsh 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.