Chapman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “required ... to choose between making incriminating statements and jeopardizing his conditional liberty by remaining silent.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bell v. State · In Re AM

2. “Supreme Court decisions have “made clear” that a state may “not constitutionally carry out a threat to revoke probation for the legitimate exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege.” Thus, while a probationer may be compelled “to appear and give testimony about matters relevant to his probationary status[,]” he cannot be “required ... to choose between making incriminating statements and jeopardizing his conditional liberty by remaining silent.” It bears emphasis “that a State may validly insist on answers to even incriminating questions and hence sensibly administer its probation system, as long as it recognizes that the required answers may not be used in a criminal proceeding and thus eliminate the threat of incrimination.” But the appellant in this case was offered no such use immunity. The State cannot reasonably have believed that it could penalize him for invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege by revoking his conditional liberty solely on the basis of his refusal to answer questions that would tend to incriminate him during the course of the sexual history polygraph process — or, for that matter, during required sex offender group therapy sessions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dansby Sr., Michael Edward v. State

3. “Our decisions have made clear that the State could not constitutionally carry out a threat to revoke probation for the legitimate exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege.”); Chapman, 115 S.W.3d at 6 . . The State also represents that appellant”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex Parte Dangelo