The Texas Supreme Court addressed Miranda and Edwards today in the context of a juvenile proceeding
H.V.

They held (5-4) that (1) a juvenile's request to speak to his mother about hiring an attorney was an invocation of his right to counsel, but (2) a gun recovered after the invocation was not suppressible (9-0).

"This Court rarely addresses issues like the one here concerning the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona; indeed, our citation to that case in this sentence is only the second in the Court's history."

Upon further review ... does anyone find 74 endnotes for an 8-page (per my printing) opinion to be a little excessive for a simple suppression case? Or is that how civil lawyers do business?

Paging Scott "Napoleon" Brumley ...

The real answer to your question is that many (if not most) civil lawyers either (1) were members of law review or (2) believe they were unfairly slighted by the law review intelligentsia.[footnote 1] Everyone knows a law review article isn't worth its ipse dixit if its footnotes don't outweight the text by at least a 3:1 margin.[footnote 2]

[1] I, of course, am something of a different breed. I'm one of the people's lawyers.

[2] The footnote ratio, generally, is to be judged solely on its content of obiter dictum and string cites, excluding emoticons.