671 So. 2d 757 - Smolder v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 2016
7 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 · Berkemer v. McCarty · Oregon v. Mathiason · California v. Beheler · Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his position.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Fields v. State · Okafor v. State“' "whether the suspect was questioned in familiar or neutral surroundings, the number of law enforcement officers present at the scene, the degree of physical restraint of the suspect, the duration and character of the questioning, how the suspect got to the place of questioning, the language used to summon the suspect, the extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of guilt, and the degree of pressure applied to detain the suspect.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The question of whether a suspect has been subjected to custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings is `not an easy one,' and the trial court's findings on conflicting evidence must be given great weight. Harris v. State , 376 So.2d 773 , 776 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 376 So.2d 778 (Ala. 1979). `The trial judge's finding of admissibility "will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is evident that the determination was palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence."' Watkins v. State , 497 So.2d 1153 , 1154 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986) ( quoting Ex parte Singleton , 465 So.2d 443 , 445 (Ala. 1985)). The determination of the admissibility of the defendant's confession was within the sound discretion of the trial court, which was in the best position to determine the credibility of the voir dire witnesses by observing their testimony and demeanor. See Lindsey v. State , 456 So.2d 383 , 389 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), aff'd , 456 So.2d 393 (Ala. 1984), cert. denied , 470 U.S. 1023 , 105 S.Ct. 1384 , 84 L.Ed.2d 403 (1985). This determination will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Lindsey; 1 LaFave Israel, [ Criminal Procedure ], at § 10.4(b) [(1984)]."”
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.