162 Ind. App. 482 - State v. Cooley’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. ““The trial judge in determining the issue of voluntariness shall take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding the giving of the confession, including but not limited to (1) the time elapsing between the arrest and arraignment' of the defendant making the confession, if it was made after arrest and before arraignment, (2) whether such defendant knew the nature of the offense with which he was charged or of which he was suspected at the time of making the confession, (3) whether or not such defendant was advised or knew that he was not required to make any statement and that any such statement could be used against him, (4) whether or not such defendant had been advised prior to questioning of his right to the assistance of counsel, and (5) whether or not such defendant was without the assistance of counsel when questioned and when giving such confession. The presence or absence of any of the above mentioned factors to be taken into consideration by the judge need not be conclusive on the issue of voluntariness of the confession.””

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

2. ““.. . the State has the burden to establish the voluntariness of the disputed confession by a preponderance of the evidence. Ramirez v. State (1972), [153] Ind. App. [142], 286 N.E.2d 219 ; Lego v. Twomey (1972), 404 U.S. 477 , 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 . On appeal, this Court will review the trial court’s determination on the issue of voluntariness in the same manner that it scrutinizes any factual finding reached on a preponderance of the evidence. See Kolb v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 469 , 282 N.E.2d 541 . “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the trial judge’s voluntariness finding, this Court will not weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility. We look only to that evidence which supports the trial court’s determination. . . ,” 2”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 166 Ind. App. 441 - Moreno v. State