63 F. Supp. 2d 449 - Nova v. Bartlett’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Berkemer v. McCarty · Harris v. New York · Oregon v. Elstad
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.
“even if petitioner did make an incriminating statement prior to receiving Miranda warnings... the circumstances surrounding petitioner's first, unwarned statement do not rise to the level of coercion necessary to render his later, fully warned statements inadmissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f a true reasonable person standard is to be applied, then the courts must recognize [] how actual people reasonably behave when encountered by the police.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“even assuming that he was in custody and his pre-Miranda statements should have been suppressed, it would amount to harmless error,”
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.