Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 616 S.W.2d 620 - Castillo v. State

Castillo v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
May 2010
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2010

12 state decisions

901981199020002010decided

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 · Edwards v. Arizona · North Carolina v. Butler · Fare v. Michael C. · Tague v. Louisiana

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

  1. “The question is not one of form, but rather whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in the Miranda case. As was unequivocally said in Miranda, mere silence is not enough. That does not mean that the defendant’s silence, coupled with an understanding of his rights and a course of conduct indicating waiver, may never support a conclusion that a defendant has waived his rights. The courts must presume that a defendant did not waive his rights; the prosecu tion’s burden is great; but in at least some cases waiver can be clearly inferred from the actions and words of the person interrogated.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Likewise, we find no evidence in this record to establish that appellant’s request for counsel before the magistrate was not a request for counsel during the interrogation which shortly followed. The State has not met its heavy burden to show that appellant waived his right to counsel. Accordingly, the statement was inadmissible. - Further, since the confession was the only evidence linking appellant to the commission of the crime, harm is definitely presented.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.