State v. McMullan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When a suspect invokes his Fifth Amendment right to have counsel present during a custodial interrogation, as defendant did in this case with the words, Til tell you the truth, but I want my lawyer present,’ interrogation must cease until the suspect’s attorney is present. Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. at 474 , 86 S.Ct. at 1628 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 723 . Moreover, once a suspect expresses his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, as defendant did here when he advised Sheriff Nelson through counsel that there would be no statement and no deals, he may not be subjected to further interrogation unless he himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). [[Image here]] The record in this case supports the conclusion that Sheriff Nelson knew, or should have known, that placing Pickett in the hold-over cell with defendant with instructions to get defendant to talk about the murder was, given defendant's anxious state and Pickett’s incentive to cooperate, an act "reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response” from defendant. Pickett’s conversation with defendant was therefore the “functional equivalent” of direct police interrogation. Rhode Island v. Innis, supra. Pickett interrogated defendant concerning the murder after defendant had plainly expressed his desire to deal with police only through counsel, and the state does not dispute the interrogat”

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