70 Cal. 2d 541 - People v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 333 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 348 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Once the defendant has been informed of his rights and indicates that he understands those rights, it would seem that his choosing to speak and not requesting a lawyer is sufficient evidence that he knows of his rights and chooses not to exercise them."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Willadson · People v. Brockman

2. “There is little, if any reason, to assume that the Miranda warning,neutralizes the inducement to confess furnished by the confrontation of the defendant with the illegally obtained evidence which shows his guilt and the futility of remaining silent. If Miranda warnings were held to insulate from the exclusionary rule confessions induced by unlawfully obtained evidence, the police would be encouraged to make illegal searches in the hope of obtaining confessions after Miranda warnings even though the actual evidence seized might later be found inadmissible. ... To so hold would result in the Miranda warning — intended to protect the defendant’s rights to counsel and to remain silent. . . and to prevent exploitive police practice . . . —becoming the instrument of a bootstrap operation to insulate unlawful police activities from the effects of the exclusionary rule. ... We recognize, of course, that Miranda did not purport to eliminate the use of confessions “given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences.” [Quoting from Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).] We recognize, too, that the taint of illegal action in this context can be dissipated by an intervening act of defendant’s free will [citation omitted], and that the Miranda warning maybe a factor to be considered with other evidence indicating that the defendant has acted independently of the unlawful inducement. However, the shield of Miranda should not become a sword ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Abdouch · 275 So. 2d 61 - Jetmore v. State

3. “`whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Superior Court · 3 Cal. 3d 1 - Mann v. Superior Court