People v. Berry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““In our opinion, the Meyer case is inapplicable for two reasons: (1) In Meyer, objection to the admission of the testimony was duly made during the trial. Here, no objection whatever was made to the reception of the testimony during the trial; objection is raised for the first time on this application for reargument. Such belated objection is an inadequate ground for reversal even if it be assumed that the testimony was inadmissible (cf. People v. Friola, 11 N.Y.2d 157 , 227 N.Y.S.2d 423 , 182 N.E.2d 100 [April 5, 1962]). (2) We believe, however, that the testimony here was in fact admissible, whereas in Meyer it was not. In Meyer, the defendant’s postarraignment statement was made in the course of his interrogation upon the crime charged against him; it formed an integral part of the then pending criminal proceeding; and, consequently, it may be said to have been, induced by ‘testimonial compulsion.’' But here the defendant’s postarraignment statement in which, he-admitted the commission of the robbery, was a wholly collateral statement made by him to the assistant, district attorney in the course of tha latter’s investigation of a different and independent charge, to wit: the-charge of extortion made by the defendant himself against police officers. In viéw of the setting and tha occasion here, the defendant’s inculpatory statement had none of tha elements of ‘testimonial compulsion;’ it was not a part or an incident of' the proceedings relating to the crima of robbery for ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States ex rel. Berry v. Warden