State v. Baumann’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Given § 3501’s express designation of voluntariness as the touchstone of admissibility, its omission of any warning requirement, and the instruction for trial courts to consider a nonexclusive list of factors relevant to the circumstances of a confession, we agree with the Court of Appeals that Congress intended by its enactment to overrule Miranda . Because of the obvious conflict between our decision in Miranda and § 3501, we must address whether Congress has constitutional authority to thus supersede Miranda . If Congress has such authority, § 3501’s totality-of-the-circumstances approach must prevail over Miranda’s requirement of warnings; if not, that section must yield to Miranda’s more specific requirements. The law in this area is clear. This Court has supervisory authority over the federal courts, and we may use that authority to prescribe rules of evidence and procedure that are binding in those tribunals. [[Image here]] In sum, we conclude that Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively. Following the rule of stare decisis, we decline to overrule Miranda ourselves. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore Reversed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Larsen

2. “In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain warnings had to be given to a suspect before any incriminating statements made by him during custodial interrogation could be admitted in evidence. Just two years after Miranda was decided, the U.S. Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 3501 , which purported to state that confessions would be admissible evidence if voluntarily given. See Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub.L. No. 90-351, § 701 , 82 Stat. 197 , 210-11 (1968) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 3501 (1994)). Voluntariness would be decided under 18 U.S.C. § 3501 with or without the giving of the Miranda warning. That statute lay idle for approximately 30 years as the justice department and law enforcement must have realized that the U.S. Congress probably cannot overrule the U.S. Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Then law enforcement decided to give it a try and found a federal appellate court to go along with them in upholding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3501 . The U.S. Supreme Court took the case on certiorari and said, “No, you can’t do that.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Larsen

3. “A peace officer who observes the operation of a motor vehicle within this state bearing special series registration plates issued under section 168.041, subdivision 6, * * * may stop the vehicle for the purpose of determining whether the driver is operating the vehicle lawfully under a valid driver’s license. 3”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Henning