State v. Bruneau’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... Assuming arguendo that the defendant raised an issue involving post-indictment State and federal rights to counsel, we find the claim of prejudicial error too speculative for adjudication. The defendant never testified and was never impeached. We have no way of knowing whether his decision to remain off the stand was influenced to any degree by the ruling in limine, any more than we can tell what would have happened if he had testified. We do not know whether his testior whether the State would actually have used the statement to impeach him.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 82 Md. App. 225 - Jordan v. State · State v. Dominick Stanin, Sr.

2. “require[s] proof of some affirmative action by a police officer or other governmental official that preceded the interrogation and can reasonably be seen to have induced the third party to conduct the interrogation that took place”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 585 So. 2d 165 - Gilchrist v. State · 838 So. 2d 413 - Smith v. State

3. “may merely authorize or sanction the third party’s action, or it may take on the features of a private contract, with an agreed-upon quid pro quo for the third party’s efforts or results. It may be expressed with precision on each side, or confirmed by a mere wink or nod.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Heirtzler