Giacomazzi v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “V: I’m gonna read something, O.K.? So, since you don’t read too well, yourself I’m gonna read it out loud. If you have any questions, you ask me. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used [against] you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer, and have him present with you, if you wish, while you’re being questioned. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one can and will be appointed to represent you, if you wish, before any questioning, and you can decide at any time to exercise your rights and not answer any questions or make any statements. Now in America, I don’t know how it is in Albania, but in America the police are required to read this to people before we talk to them, if they’re under arrest. A: Yes. V: And, so I’ve read it to you and it keeps me from getting in trouble, O.K.? A: Yes. V: If you will talk to me, and after you have been read this, if you feel that you understand it, I’d like to have you agree to talk to me by signing here, stating that you will talk to me. O.K.? A: Well, uh ... V: Basically what it means is that I understand what you, I have a right to remain silent, and I, but I agree to answer questions. In other words I waive my fifth amendment rights and I agree to talk to you right now. A: Uh, huh. V: You, you also reserve the right to talk any time you want to, this doesn’t mean you have to talk to me. We don’t use torture techniques in the United States so you know, any time, anything you don’t”

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

2. “Our own review of these questions when they are presented on appeal is necessarily bifurcated. First we must examine the trial court’s factual findings concerning the events in question. In so doing, “we view the record in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s ruling.” Stumbaugh v. State, 599 P.2d 166, 172 (Alaska 1979). This comports with the clearly erroneous standard applied recently in making the related determination of whether a confession was in fact made. Troyer v. State, 614 P.2d 313, 318 (Alaska 1980). But as we noted in that case, once we turn to the question of whether a waiver should be found in a given factual setting, “we have a duty to examine the entire record and make an independent determination.” Id.”

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