Qualls v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
October 2015
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Doyle v. Ohio · Greer v. Miller · United States v. Hale
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' [u]nder Doyle v. Ohio , 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), the prosecution may not use the post-arrest, post- Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), silence of a defendant as evidence of his guilt.' " Qualls v. State , 927 So.2d 852 , 855-856 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (quoting Burell v. State , 680 So.2d 975 , 980 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) ). This Court further explained: " ' "[W]hile it is true that the Miranda[ v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966),] warnings contain no express assurance that silence will carry no penalty, such assurance is implicit to any person who receives the warnings. In such circumstances, it would be fundamentally unfair and a deprivation of due process to allow the arrested person's silence to be used to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial.”
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.