State v. Weiland’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

1,568

cited by 1,568 later decisions

states following

July 2019

most recently cited

1,563 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,568 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably 985 So. 2d 234 - State v. Jones (2008), State v. Washington (2005)

1,563 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 · Boykin v. Alabama · State v. Oliveaux · 338 So. 2d 584 - State v. Crosby · Kissinger v. Halperin

Cited together with Jackson v. Virginia · State v. Oliveaux · Boykin v. Alabama · Anders v. California · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera

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 1,568 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“For the purpose of an error patent review the”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Birden · State v. Jackson
“Before a confession can be introduced into evidence, the State has the burden of proving that it was free and voluntary and not made under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements or promises. [footnote omitted] LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 703(D); LSA-R.S. 15:451; State v. Vaccaro, 411 So.2d 415 (La.1982). It must also be established that an accused who makes a confession during a custodial interrogation was first advised of his constitutional rights as per Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and voluntarily and intelligently waived those rights. State v. Castillo, 389 So.2d 1307 (La.1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 922 , 101 S.Ct. 3159 , 69 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1981); State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La.App. 5th Cir.1990). * * * * * * The issue of whether a showing of voluntariness has been made is analyzed on a case by case basis with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The trial judge must consider the "totality of the circumstances" in deciding whether the confession is admissible. State v. Shepherd, 449 So.2d 1120, 1123 (La.App. 5th Cir.1984). The admissibility of a confession is in the first instance a question for the trial judge. His conclusions on the credibility and weight of testimony relating to the voluntariness of a confession are entitled to great weight and will not be overturned on appeal unless they are not supported by the evidence. State v. Benoit, 440 So.2d 129 (La.1983); State v. Weiland, ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Smith · 668 So. 2d 1260 - State v. Smith
“statement on the record at the time of his guilty plea that his plea was conditioned upon his agreement with the district attorney to reserve the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress was sufficient to constitute an oral motion for appeal under C.Cr.P. art 914.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Richardson

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.