Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 971 SW2D 307 - State v. Mahan

State v. Mahan’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
4
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 2017

23 state decisions

160199820002010decided

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 · Doyle v. Ohio · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Griswold v. State of Connecticut

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

  1. “The Fifth Amendment commands that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 462 , 101 S.Ct. 1866 , 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981). The privilege against self-incrimination is safeguarded after arrest by the mandatory warning procedures outlined in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), which include the requirement that police warn those taken into custody that they have the right to remain silent. United States v. Johnson, 56 F.3d 947, 955 (8th Cir. 1995); see also State v. Dexter, 954 S.W.2d 332, 337 (Mo. banc 1997). In Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), the United States Supreme Court held that if a defendant is silent at the time of arrest and after receiving Miranda warnings, using that silence to impeach the defendant violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dexter, 954 S.W.2d at 337 . “The point of the Doyle holding is that it is fundamentally unfair to promise an arrested person that his silence will not be used against him and thereafter to breach that promise by using the silence to impeach his trial testimony.” Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284, 292 , 106 S.Ct. 634 , 88 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986).”
    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.