Bell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 159 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 169 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Rousseau v. State (1993), Dowthitt v. State (1996)
4 federal appellate · 159 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 · Wong Sun v. United States · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite
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 169 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The giving of the Miranda warnings; (2) The temporal proximity of the arrest and the search; (3) The presence of intervening circumstances; and (4) The purpose and flagrancy of the officers’ conduct.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Little v. State · Gonzales v. State“... recognizes that such bias [against the death penalty] is not susceptible to unmistakably clear proof through the voir dire process, and that venire members may be reticent, inarticulate, or unsure of how they would react when faced with imposing the death sentence, [citation omitted] Finally, it makes clear that ‘whether or not a venireman might vote for death under certain personal standards, the State still may properly challenge that venireman if he refuses to follow the statutory scheme and truthfully answer the questions put by the trial judge.’ [citation omitted].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Kemp v. State · Caldwell v. State“In summary, the temporal proximity [within 1½ to 3 hours] and intervening circumstances factors militate heavily against admission of appellant’s first confession. The repeated Miranda warnings do not significantly affect the conclusion. Concerning the fourth factor, the police conduct here certainly does not shock the conscience of this Court. An otherwise inadmissible confession ... however, should not be made admissible simply because the police conduct was not too reprehensible. To so hold would blatantly subject the protection of fundamental rights to the vagaries of the collective (elected) conscience of this Court, which we decline to do.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Jones v. State · Black v. State
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.