Cooper v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

94 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Undue delay in bringing one accused of crime before a magistrate is not, of itself, a denial of due process. It is only where a preliminary delay in some way deprives an accused of a fair trial that there can be a denial of due process. “The guaranty of a speedy trial contained in Section 10 of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution does not refer to the preliminary examination, but rather to the trial held after an indictment is returned or an information is filed, and at which the issue of guilt or innocence is to be determined.” (Syl. ¶¶ 1, 2.)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McCuan v. State · Peterson v. State

2. “"... Nevertheless, we are disposed to distill, once more, the essence of our many holdings on this subject: (1) Under our practice the purpose of a preliminary examination for one accused of a felony is to determine whether an offense has been committed, and whether there is probable cause to charge the accused with its commission; (2) the preliminary examination held pursuant to our statutes does not constitute a trial in its common, ordinary sense; (3) an accused has no constitutional right to be provided with counsel at his preliminary hearing; and (4) in the absence of a showing that the substantial rights of an accused have been prejudiced by lack of counsel at the preliminary examination, the failure to furnish counsel thereat does not constitute reversible error. ( State v. Daegele, 193 Kan. 314 , 393 P.2d 978 , cert. den. 379 U.S. 981 , 13 L.Ed.2d 571 , 85 S.Ct. 686 ; State v. Jordan, 193 Kan. 664 , 396 P.2d 342 , cert. den. 380 U.S. 920 , 13 L.Ed.2d 805 , 85 S.Ct. 917 ; State v. Cox, 193 Kan. 571 , 396 P.2d 326 , cert. den. 380 U.S. 982 , 14 L.Ed.2d 276 , 85 S.Ct. 1350 .) Many more decisions of like import could be cited, but they would merely prolong this opinion without adding to its wisdom." (l.c. 426, 427.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Washington · State v. Washington

3. ““Needless to say, this court does not approve of unwarranted delay, either in the filing of formal charges against a suspect who is confined in jail, or in taking him before a proper magistrate for examination. We subscribe to the prevailing view that when a person is arrested for a crime, either with or without a warrant, he is to be taken before a magistrate with reasonable promptness and without unnecessary delay. [Citations.! “The state makes no attempt to justify its failure to take the plaintiff before an examining magistrate until after he had languished in jail for nearly two weeks. Unexplained, a delay of such proportions indicates indifference on the part of law enforcement officers toward their official responsibilities. It also infringes the right of every person arrested for a crime to an early examination before a magistrate (K. S. A. 62-610, 62-614). We are not disposed to condone such official shortcoming. “The present action, however, is not one to test the validity of an arrest, nor one to recover damages for an illegal detention. Neither is it a proceeding to gain release from an unlawful custody prior to trial. This case attacks the validity of the sentence pronounced against the plaintiff, which is claimed to to be illegal on the premise, among others, that plaintiff was not promptly taken before a magistrate after his arrest.” (p. 423.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wheeler v. State