929 So. 2d 640 - Cuervo v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

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

1. “Palmieri: You can explain to him that at this time if he does wish to speak with us, that he can give us his side of the story. If he doesn't wish to, that's his right. He does not have to. Just let him know that. Garcia: Okay, she is explaining that now would be your opportunity if you wish to speak and explain your side of the story, your version of what happened. If you wish to talk, you don't have to. You are not obligated to, but if you wish to talk there's still time.* Cuervo: I don't if she talked and made her story and her and her mother . . . * Garcia: Uh huh. Cuervo: . . . are people who have been in this country for thirty years and can use something against me (inaudible).* Garcia: Okay. Cuervo: Uh, I have (inaudible) the only thing I have to say that she and her mother (inaudible) . . . * Garcia: Mm hm. Cuervo: . . . and I (inaudible). That's the only thing I have to say.* Garcia: Okay, let me translate a little to her so that I can then tell you (inaudible).* Um, he's saying that um, he does, he does not wish to speak because he doesn't know if the victim already said anything um, or the victim's mother, `cause uh, he's afraid that they've been here for thirty years or more and that they can use anything against him to um, (inaudible). Palmieri: Okay. Does he have an attorney that we can speak with? Garcia: Do you have a lawyer that you want to speak to?* Cuervo: I don't have a lawyer. I don't know anyone in this country (inaudible).* Garcia: Okay. He doesn't kn”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 967 So. 2d 155 - Cuervo v. State

2. “In contrast to Owen , Cuervo made two statements that clearly showed he did not wish to speak to the police. . . . Both officers specifically testified that Cuervo stated he did not want to speak to them; that expression sufficed. See Smith v. State, 915 So.2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (dismissing State's contention that defendant's assertion was ambiguous). Courts have held that admitting statements after such an expression is error, even if improper questioning quickly leads a suspect to change his mind. See Dooley, 743 So.2d at 67-69 . Here, the State's argument that Palmieri's questions were clarifying rather than substantive is sleight of hand. Taken to its logical conclusion, an officer can testify that clarifying questioning continued because the defendant appeared confused or puzzled. An officer could also state that, in light of defendant's minimal education, clarification was needed to be sure the defendant understood his rights. If nothing else, Miranda stands for the proposition that police questioning must stop when the defendant invokes his rights.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 967 So. 2d 155 - Cuervo v. State

3. “The trial court then found, given this translation, that Cuervo's response was equivocal and that the exchange that followed was only for clarification and did not amount to a violation of Cuervo's constitutional rights. Although the Fifth District translated Cuervo's response as he did not want to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 967 So. 2d 155 - Cuervo v. State