86 Wash. 2d 419 - State v. Myers’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably 105 Wash. 2d 632 - State v. Terrovona (1986), Ellis v. District of Columbia (1996)
14 federal appellate · 59 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 · Glasser v. United States · Morrissey v. Brewer · Bruton v. United States · Jackson v. Denno
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Criminal rule 101.20W (CrR 3.5) is Washington's confession procedure rule. Its basic purpose is to provide a uniform procedure for the admission of voluntary confessions (as well as other [incriminating] custodial statements, see State v. Jones, 65 Wash.2d 449, 455 , 397 P.2d 815 (1964)) in a fashion that will prevent the jury from hearing an involuntary confession. The rule's significant impact is that the trial judge resolves the issue of voluntariness in the absence of the jury and thus obviates the due process problems that would arise where the jury hears an involuntary confession.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Viney · State v. Williams“[a]fter considering the entire record, can it be said that the accused was afforded an effective representation and a fair and impartial trial?”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Appellant’s second argument is that he was denied due process by the failure of the judge at the, revocation hearing to make written findings of fact. This contention, however, does not stand scrutiny because the judge’s oral opinion, transcribed in the statement of facts, provides an ample record of the evidence on which the judge relied and the reasons for the revocation. . . . Thus, the absence of specific written findings did not hinder appellant in making his appeal since the oral opinion provided a record sufficient for review. ... A remand for the purpose of entering formal written findings would serve no useful purpose. . . . Under these circumstances, the failure to enter written findings of fact did not result in a denial of appellant’s due process rights.”
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.