State v. Dobney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . • Assuming, however, incriminating statements were obtained, they were never offered or used against him. He chose to enter a plea of guilty instead of standing trial. Therefore, whether or not such statements would have been admissible had they been offered in evidence at a trial, is entirely irrelevant. (Allen v. State, 199 Kan. 147 , 427 P. 2d 598 ; Baier v. State, 197 Kan. 602 , 419 P. 2d 865 ; Smith v. State, 196 Kan. 438 , 411 P. 2d 663 ; McCall v. State, 196 Kan. 411 , 411 P. 2d 647 ; Call v. State, 195 Kan. 688 , 408 P. 2d 668 , cert. denied 384 U. S. 957 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 552 , 86 S. Ct. 1581 .) Moreover, defendant overlooks the significance of his voluntary pleas of guilty to the crimes charged. We have repeatedly held that an accused’s voluntary plea of guilty in a criminal case is a confession of guilt of the crime charged and every fact alleged therein, and that legally it is the most formal and binding confession possible for him to make. (Allen v. State, supra, and cases therein cited.)” (l.c. 450.)”

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

2. ““Defendant’s next contention that he was prejudiced because of the delay in his being taken before an examining magistrate is likewise without merit. The record fails to disclose the date of arrest, but we are told that it was on Saturday, March 26, 1966. Charges were filed on Tuesday, March 29, and on the same day the defendant was taken before the magistrate. The reason for the delay is not apparent, except that the arrest occurred on the weekend. In what way defendant was prejudiced by the delay is not shown. Even if the time interval be considered excessive, unless the delay in some way deprived the defendant of a fair trial, it did not in and of itself constitute a denial of due process.” (p. 451.)”

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