State v. Sampson’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently December 2012
18 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 · Edwards v. Arizona · Berkemer v. McCarty · Colorado v. Connelly · Nix v. Williams
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether the defendant came to the place of interrogation freely and willingly.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612 [, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ] (1966). The Court expanded on this definition in Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 , 97 S.Ct. 711 [, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 ] (1977) (per curiam). " Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him `in custody.'" Id. at 495 , 97 S.Ct. at 714 . Later, in California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 , 103 S.Ct. 3517 [, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 ] (1983) (per curiam), the Court stated that "the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is a `formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement' of the degree associated with formal arrest." Id. at 1125 , 103 S.Ct. at 3520 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mirquet“The state cites testimony to the effect that defendant did not consider himself under arrest even after he was formally arrested, suggesting this demonstrates that defendant could not have believed he was in custody when he first confessed. This evidence is at most a commentary on defendant’s acumen. Under the objective "reasonable person” test, defendant’s subjective belief about custody is not relevant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Higgins v. State
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.