People v. Miranda’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 2013
7 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 Ashe v. Swenson · Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange · Commonwealth v. Hude · United States v. Montes-Cardenas · Jeffrey v. District Court In & For the Eighth Judicial District
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Basing the application of the compulsory joinder statute on a determination of the interrelationship between the proofs of the several offenses properly focuses the trial court’s inquiry on the degree to which the defendant is harassed and judicial resources wasted by successive prosecutions .... Where the proof or defense of one charge necessarily involves the proof or defense of another charge, sequential prosecutions of the two charges burden both the defendant and the state with repetitive presentation of evidence. However, where the proofs of the charges are not interrelated, the prejudice to the defendant caused by separate prosecutions is minimal. For purposes of compulsory joinder, the requirement that offenses arise out of “the same criminal episode,” must be interpreted to include the condition that the offenses be connected in such a manner that prosecution of the offenses involve substantially interrelated proof. Crimes that are committed simultaneously or in close sequence, crimes that occur in the same or closely related place, and acts that form part of the schematic whole, generally involve interrelated proof.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Akau · In re Greene“[plroof of different crimes is interrelated if the proof of one crime forms a substantial portion of proof of the other,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Marquez v. People · In re Greene“a single act or single behavioral incident that results in the commission of more than one offense,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Marquez v. People · In re Greene
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.