7 Va. App. 10 - Blain v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
216 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 216 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably 28 Va. App. 187 - Timbers v. Commonwealth (1998), 13 Va. App. 123 - Logan v. Fairfax County Department of Human Development (1991)
216 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 · Rhode Island v. Innis · Mathis v. United States · Higginbotham v. Commonwealth · 4 Va. App. 438 - Martin v. Commonwealth
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 216 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The admissibility of evidence is within the broad discretion of the trial court, and a ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]nterrogation includes ... express questioning [and] its “functional equivalent.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 , 100 S.Ct. 1682, 1689-90 , 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). The [United States Supreme] Court defined the “functional equivalent” of questioning as “any words or actions on the part of the police ... that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect,” Id. If a suspect’s statement was not foreseeable, then it is volunteered. “Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by [Miranda].” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478 , 86 S.Ct. at 1630 . We interpret the Innis standard as requiring a determination whether an objective observer would view an officer’s words or actions as designed to elicit an incriminating response.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“`the Innis standard . . . requir[es] a determination of whether an objective observer would view an officer's words or actions as designed to elicit an incriminating response,'”
3 later decisions 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.