596 So. 2d 985 - Owen v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Rothgery v. Gillespie County (2008), 660 So. 2d 685 - Barwick v. State (1995)
2 federal appellate · 37 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 · Kirby v. Illinois · Moran v. Burbine · Brewer v. Williams · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The term `arraign' simply means to be called before a court officer and charged with a crime. The term commonly has two uses. First, it is used in the general sense to refer to the proceeding where an accused (who is now formally a defendant) is first taken to court and presented before a committing magistrate. The magistrate will confirm that the defendant is the person named in the formal complaint and will read aloud the charges contained in it. The magistrate will generally warn the defendant that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says will be used against him, and that he has a right to a lawyer's help, either retained or appointed. No responsive pleading is made. The magistrate will then set bail. This proceeding is commonly called a `first appearance,' `initial presentment,' or `arraignment on the warrant.' 1 Wayne R. *Page 908 LaFave Jerome H. Israel, supra n. 6, § 1.4, at 21. Second, the term `arraignment' refers to the step in the prosecution where the defendant is brought before the trial court — not the committing magistrate — informed of the charges against him, and required to enter a plea. This proceeding is commonly called an `arraignment on the information or indictment.' Id. at 26. As noted above, when the Court in Kirby v. Illinois , 406 U.S. 682 , 92 S.Ct. 1877 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972), and [ Michigan v.] Jackson [, 475 U.S. 625 (1986)] said that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at `arraignment,' it apparently was using the t”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Ex Parte Stewart“"See 2 Wayne R. LaFave Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 11.2, at 8 (Supp. 1991) ('[T]he initiation of adversary judicial proceedings ordinarily requires a formal commitment of the government to prosecute, as evidenced by the filing of charges. This can occur prior to the issuance of an indictment or information, as where the defendant is brought before the magistrate for an "arraignment" or "first appearance" on charges filed in the form of a complaint. '); 1 Wayne R. LaFave Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 6.4, at 468 (1984) ('[A]t least from the time defendant is brought into court and arraigned on the warrant (at which point it or the complaint underlying it becomes a tentative charging document) the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies.'); Joseph D. Grano, Kirby, Biggers, and Ash: Do Any Constitutional Safeguards Remain Against the Danger of Convicting the Innocent? , 72 Mich. L. Rev. 717 , 788-79 (1973) ('[A] convincing argument can be made that a criminal prosecution commences at least with the preliminary arraignment when a formal complaint is filed in court against the accused. . . . Professor Miller, supporting his exhaustive analysis of the charging function with extensive field study data, has called the decision to file a complaint "the heart of the charging process." . . . It would defy common sense to say that a criminal prosecution has not commenced against a defendant who, perhaps incarcerated and unable to afford judicially imposed bail, await”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Ex Parte Stewart
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.