175 Ind. App. 17 - Lee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 10 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[Lee] argues first that his rights were violated under the holding in Massiah v. United States (1964), 377 U.S. 201 , 84 S.Ct. 1199 , 12 L.Ed.2d 246 . In Massiah , after the defendant had been indicted, a co-actor agreed to cooperate with officials by securing incriminating remarks through a transmitter installed in his car. The court found such evidence inadmissible holding that police officials could not eavesdrop to secure incriminating statements from a suspect who had already been indicted without first advising him of his constitutional rights. However, in United States v. Osser (3d Cir. 1973), 483 F.2d 727 , the court emphasized the fact that Messiah [sic] applies only where a defendant’s post-indictment statements were solicited by police and were used to prove the offenses for which he had originally been indicted.” 369 N.E.2d at 1085 .”

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