196 Wis. 2d 537 - State v. Tobias’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “[Testimony indicates that the confrontation with this untainted evidence was the intervening circumstance that induced Tobias to confess. Several jurisdictions have held confrontations may constitute intervening circumstances under the Brown analysis. “ ‘A defendant’s confrontation with untainted evidence, which induces in the defendant a voluntary desire to confess, may be a legitimate intervening circumstance’ to dissipate the taint of the defendant’s earlier illegal arrest.” [[Image here]] ... This possibility was contemplated by the United States Supreme Court in Brown , where it observed that it is entirely possible that persons arrested illegally frequently may decide to confess, as an act of free will unaffected by the initial illegality. Because Tobias’s incriminating statements were an act of free will induced not by the illegal arrest but by the confrontation with untainted evidence, we conclude this Brown factor weighs in favor of attenuation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Monge v. State

2. “especially because the facts indicate the statements were obtained not by exploitation of the arrest, but because Tobias was confronted with untainted, incriminating evidence against him.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Vorburger

3. “a court need not hold that all evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2006 WI App 134 - State v. Farias-Mendoza