898 So. 2d 233 - Samuel v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
July 2008
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · State v. Glatzmayer · 842 So. 2d 897 - McCauley v. State · 793 So. 2d 1044 - Edwards v. State
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Certainly, a threat to charge a suspect with more, and more serious, crimes unless he or she confesses is coercive. Further, it is essentially a promise not to prosecute to the fullest extent allowed by law if that person confesses. Hence, the investigators' threats amounted to an exertion of improper and undue influence, rendering the affected portion of Edwards' statement involuntary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chambers v. State“discussed the five or six robberies, he would not charge him with the others.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Fowler's promise not to prosecute the other fictional crimes”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chambers 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.