People v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 9 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Although the issue is one of first impression in this State, courts of other jurisdictions have held that the use of reasonable force in subduing a defendant or in effecting his arrest does not impair the voluntariness of a statement made by him during his subjugation or render such statement inadmissible. (See, e. g., People v. Burwell, 44 Cal.2d 16, 30-31 , 279 P.2d 744 , cert. den. 349 U.S. 936 , 75 S.Ct. 788 , 99 L.Ed. 1265 ; Anderson v. State, 133 Wis. 601 , 114 N.W. 112 .)””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Winsett · Winsett v. State

2. ““Confessions which are involuntary are inadmissible ‘not because [they] are unlikely to be true but because the methods used to extract them offend an underlying principle in the enforcement of our criminal law’ and violate procedural standards of due process. (Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 540-541 , 81 S.Ct. 735, 739 , 5 L.Ed.2d 760 ; see Spano v. People of State of New York, 360 U.S. 315, 320-321 , 79 S.Ct. 1202 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1265 ; Blackburn v. State of Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 , 80 S.Ct. 274 , 4 L.Ed.2d 242 ; Watts v. State of Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 54 , 69 S.Ct. 1347 , 93 L.Ed. 1801 .)””

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

3. ““Nor does the use of force to accomplish the defendant’s arrest taint the incriminating statements which were subsequently given to the police and the district attorney at the station house. [Citations omitted.]””

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