190 W. Va. 482 - State v. Leadingham’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Salerno · Rochin v. People of California · Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al. · Massiah v. United States · Palko v. State of Connecticut
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. That the State through use of an agent intentionally created a situation likely to induce the defendant to make incriminating statements without assistance of counsel. 2. That the statements related to the offense for which the defendant had been charged and the right to counsel had attached. 3. That the police knowingly circumvented the right to counsel in deliberately elicited [sic] the statements. 4. That the police and the undercover agent took some action beyond mere listening to induce the statements.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A judgment of conviction will not be reversed because of improper remarks made by a prosecuting attorney in his opening statement to a jury which do not clearly prejudice the accused or result in manifest injustice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“substantive due process” prevents the government from engaging in conduct that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.