Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 927 SW2D 378 - State v. Frazier

State v. Frazier’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2016

19 state decisions

90199620002010decided

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 Doyle v. Ohio · State v. Cline · State v. Nolan · State v. Tims · State v. Collis

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

  1. “Once the defendant revokes the waiver of his right to remain silent, the state can show the circumstances under which an interrogation was terminated. Nonetheless, any evidence describing the conclusion of an interrogation must be carefully scrutinized. Evidence in regard to the conclusion of an interrogation which reveals that the defendant was failing to answer a direct charge of guilt is improper. Likewise, evidence which reflects that the defendant “clammed up” under circumstances calling imperatively for an admission or denial should not be admitted. However, to the extent that no inference of guilt can reasonably be drawn from evidence describing the con- elusion of an interrogation, it is admissible.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “A. I asked him if he would be willing to give us a statement on videotape. Q. When you asked him that, what happened? A. He said that he thought he should talk to an attorney first. Q. Is that the first mention that he had made of wanting to talk to an attorney? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. And when he asked to talk to an attorney, did you in fact make arrangements for him to do so? A. I did. Q. After that was completed, did you renew your request? A. No, sir. After he had talked to an attorney, he indicated he did not wish to make any further statement.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““While we caution that any testimony must be carefully analyzed regarding the implications resulting from a defendant’s silence, merely testifying to the conclusion of an interrogation after a defendant waived his right to silence is not prejudicial error." (Emphasis supplied).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.