611 So. 2d 1023 - Ex Parte Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The United States Supreme Court has specifically held that the “totality of the circumstances” test is applicable when determining the admissibility of a juvenile’s confession: “ “This totality-of-the-circumstances approach is adequate to determine whether there has been a waiver even where interrogation of juveniles is involved.... The totality approach permits — indeed it mandates — inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. This includes evaluation of the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and into whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.” ’ “Carr, 545 So.2d at 822 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), quoting Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2572 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979).””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. LLJ v. State · L.L.J. v. State

2. “"`First, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. Only if the "totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation" reveal both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda rights have been waived.'"”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. LLJ v. State · L.L.J. v. State

3. ““ ‘[w]hen the State offers in evidence a juvenile’s statement, it must show that the juvenile made the statement after being advised of his rights under Rule 11[ (B) ], Ala. R. Juv. P. Ex parte Whi- senant, 466 So.2d 1006 (Ala.1985); Carr v. State, 545 So.2d 820 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). Rule 11[(B)] requires that a juvenile be given the standard Miranda warnings and also requires that he be told that he has the “right to communicate with [his counsel, parent, or guardian if they are not present] and that, if necessary, reasonable means will be provided for him to do so.” ’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. LLJ v. State · Ward v. State