McCambridge v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “under Art. I, Sec. 10 of the Texas Constitution, a critical stage in the criminal process does not occur until charges are brought against a suspect.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Foster v. State · Green v. State

2. “Appellant was arrested for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. He was taken into a videotaping room. There he was read his legal warning: that he had the right to remain silent, that any statement he made could be used against him, that he had the right to a lawyer to advise him prior to and during any questioning and that he could terminate the interview at any time. Appellant asked to consult with an attorney. He was permitted to call his attorney from the videotaping room. During the telephone conversation, three police officers remained in the room and appellant’s portion of the conversation was recorded. Appellant asked if his attorney could call him back and a police officer told him that they could not accept in-coming calls. The officer told him to make his conversation brief, that what he needed to discuss with his lawyer was whether he should participate in the motor skills exercises, whether he should answer any questions and whether he should submit to an intoxilyzer test. The appellant was told several times to keep the conversation short. He was finally told that he had only two minutes left. Appellant terminated the conversation. He then consented to perform the motor skills exercises, answered questions and consented to the intoxi-lyzer test. The results of the intoxilyzer test indicated a breath-alcohol concentration of 0.18 percent. The audio portion of the videotape was suppressed by the trial court.”

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

3. “The [United States] Supreme Court has not yet expressly reconciled the constitutional duality of the right to counsel guarantees as expressly provided in the Sixth Amendment and implicitly provided in the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fair hearing.... Despite their often combining, and therefore confusing, the two principles ..., it appears that at least since Gideon v. Wainwright, [ 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963)], the due process guarantee of counsel has been restricted to civil proceedings ..., quasi-civil proceedings ..., or appeals.... The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel on the other hand has been restricted to proceedings that are identified in the Sixth Amendment-"criminal prosecutions." ,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mogard v. City of Laramie