Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 6 Md. App. 688 - Anderson v. State

6 Md. App. 688 - Anderson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
4
states following
November 2005
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 2005

20 state decisions

11019691970198019902000decided

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 · 70 Cal. 2d 541 - People v. Johnson · State v. McKnight · United States v. Hayes

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

  1. “"A valid waiver, however, `will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained,' Miranda at page 475, 86 S.Ct. at p. 1628 , * * * and in no event can the failure of the accused to ask for a lawyer constitute a waiver, Miranda at page 470, 86 S.Ct. 1602 , * * *. But, as pointed out in United States v. Hayes, 385 F.2d 375 (4th Cir.), an express statement by an accused undergoing custodial interrogation that he understood his Miranda rights and nevertheless wanted to make a statement is not an essential link in the chain of proof of waiver. And the proper inquiry is not whether the accused made an intelligent decision in the sense that it was wise or smart to admit his participation in the crime, but whether his decision was made with the full understanding that he need say nothing at all and that he might then consult with a lawyer if he so desired. United States v. Hall, 396 F.2d 841 (4th Cir.). In People v. Johnson, 75 Cal. Rptr. 401 , 450 P.2d 865 , the Supreme Court of California held that `Once the defendant has been informed of his rights and indicates that he understands those rights, it would seem that his choosing to speak and not requesting a lawyer is sufficient evidence that he knows of his rights and chooses not to exercise them.' In Brown v. State, 3 Md.App. 313 , 239 A.2d 761 , we held that despite the fact that the evidence does not show an express waiver o”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Cases tending to this view are now legion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.