117 Ohio App. 3d 290 - State v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Promises that a defendant's cooperation will be considered in disposition of the case, or that a confession will be helpful, do not invalidate an otherwise legal confession.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Jelks, 17-08-18 (11-10-2008) · State v. Chambers, Unpublished Decision (3-3-2006)

2. “`The line to be drawn between permissible police conduct and conduct deemed to induce or tend to induce an involuntary statement does not depend upon the bare language of inducement but rather upon the nature of the benefit to be derived by a defendant if he speaks the truth, as represented by the police. {¶ 38} "* * * {¶ 39} "`When the benefit pointed out by the police to a suspect is merely that which flows naturally from a truthful and honest course of conduct, we can perceive nothing improper in such police activity. On the other hand, if in addition to the foregoing benefit, or in the place thereof, the defendant is given to understand that he might reasonably expect benefits in the nature of more lenient treatment at the hands of the police, prosecution or court in consideration of making a statement, even a truthful one, such motivation is deemed to render the statement involuntary and inadmissible. The offer or promise of such benefit need not be expressed, but may be implied from equivocal language not otherwise made clear.' (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Young, Unpublished Decision (7-23-2004)

3. “should consider the totality of the circumstances, including the age, mentality, and prior criminal experience of the accused; the length, intensity, and frequency of interrogation; the existence of physical deprivation or mistreatment; and the existence of threat or inducement.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Chambers, Unpublished Decision (3-3-2006)