State v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently September 2017
20 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 · Doyle v. Ohio · Baxter v. Palmigiano · Jenkins v. Anderson · Brown v. United States
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the case of prearrest silence, in which “[t]he failure to speak occurfs] before the petitioner [is] taken into custody and given Miranda warnings,” and in which “no governmental action induce[s] petitioner to remain silent,” “the fundamental unfairness present in Doyle is not present.” Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 240 , 100 S.Ct. 2124, 2130 , 65 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980). Neither Doyle specifically, nor the Due Process Clause generally, bars the inquiry. Jenkins, 447 U.S. at 239-40 , 100 S.Ct. at 2129-30 . In addition, Jenkins made clear, without expressly deciding “whether or under what circumstances prearrest silence may be protected by the Fifth Amendment,” id., 447 U.S. at 236 n. 2, 100 S.Ct. at 2128 , that by taking the stand and exposing himself to cross-examination, “a defendant waives any Fifth Amendment | ⅞1 privilege he may have against the use of his prearrest silence for impeachment purposes.” Id., 447 U.S. at 235-36 , 100 S.Ct. at 2127-28 (discussing Raffel v. United States, 271 U.S. 494 , 46 S.Ct. 566 , 70 L.Ed. 1054 (1926)). The federal constitution therefore leaves undisturbed the common law tradition which “allowed witnesses to be impeached by their previous failure to state a fact in circumstances in which that fact naturally would have been asserted.” Jenkins, 447 U.S. at 239 , 100 S.Ct. at 2129 (citing 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence, § 1042, p. 1056) (Chadbourn rev.1970).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An objection stating no basis presents nothing for this court to review”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.