622 So. 2d 984 - Allred v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 699 So. 2d 602 - Voorhees v. State (1997), State v. Taylor (1995)
31 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 · Schmerber v. State of California · Pennsylvania v. Muniz · Doe v. United States · 596 So. 2d 957 - Traylor v. State
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“because they are not designed to lead to an incriminating response; rather, they are designed to lead to essential biographical data.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]nterrogation takes place for Section 9 purposes when a person is subjected to express questions, or other words or actions, by a state agent, that a reasonable person would conclude are designed to lead to an incriminating response.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is undisputed that petitioners here were in custody; they were under arrest. We find that petitioners were being interrogated within the meaning of Traylor when they were asked to recite, out of the ordinary sequence, the alphabet and numbers. A reasonable person would conclude that the request to recite, out of the ordinary sequence, letters and numbers was designed to lead to an incriminating response. We find moreover that the petitioners were denied their Florida constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Failure to accurately recite the alphabet "discloses information" beyond possible slurred speech; it is the content (incorrect recitation) of the speech that is being introduced, rather than merely the manner (slurring) of speech. * * * * * * If the recitation of the alphabet were admitted only to show slurred speech, we would agree that only physical evidence is involved. We cannot agree that the information disclosed in the instant cases however is mere physical information. The content is incriminating evidence out of the suspect's own mouth. The incriminating inference is drawn from the testimonial act answering the question incorrectly, not from physical evidence slurred speech.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Burns
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.