Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 807 So. 2d 1232 - McGrone v. State

807 So. 2d 1232 - McGrone v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Doyle v. Ohio · Jenkins v. Anderson · Roberts v. United States · Anderson v. Charles · Fletcher v. Weir

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

  1. “In the absence of the sort of affirmative assurances embodied in the Miranda warnings, we do not believe that it violates due process of law for a State to permit cross-examination as to post[-]arrest silence when a defendant chooses to take the stand. A State is entitled, in such situations, to leave to the judge and jury under its own rules of evidence the resolution of the extent to which post[-]arrest silence may be deemed to impeach a criminal defendant’s own testimony.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]f it was improper for the State to cross-examine a defendant regarding his silence after being arrested and read his Miranda warnings, then it was also improper to cross-examine McGrone in this manner, where there was no evidence in the record as to whether he had been given Miranda warnings or not. The Court of Appeals found that a defendant would have the protection of the Fifth Amendment in either case, and if cross-examination was prohibited under the first scenario, it was also prohibited under the second.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[I]n Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404, 407-08 , 100 S.Ct. 2180 , 65 L.Ed.2d 222 (1980), [the United States Supreme Court] explained that use of silence for impeachment was fundamentally unfair in Doyle because ‘Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him.... Doyle bars the use against a criminal defendant of silence maintained after receipt of governmental assurances.””
    1 later decision 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.