Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 766 SW2D 246 - Murphy v. State

Murphy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
February 1999
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Michigan v. Mosley · Arizona v. Roberson · Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg

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

  1. “Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. Without the right to cut oft questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.