State v. Knapp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The proffered evidence need not prove a fact in a 'substantial way,' but it must do more than 'simply afford[ ] a possible ground of suspicion against another person.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. General Grant Wilson · 337 Wis. 2d 351 - State v. Avery

2. “When the police seek to obtain a confession from a suspect in custody, they must decide whether to read the Miranda warnings before the interrogation begins. They will be presented with two options. They can either: (1) forego the warnings and any confession the suspect makes; or (2) read the warnings and risk having the suspect exercise his right to remain silent. The certainty that the suspect's confession will be suppressed if the Miranda warnings are not read serves as a strong deterrent against committing a Miranda violation and encourages police officers to choose the second option. The police have different incentives when they know that nontestimonial fruits of a Miranda violation will be admissible at trial. Again, their choices will be twofold: (1) forego the warnings and the suspect's confession, but with the understanding that the confession can be used to discover admissible nontestimonial evidence; or (2) read the warnings and risk losing both the confession and the resultant nontestimonial evidence if the suspect exercises his right to remain silent. Given the potential benefits of the first option, the police will have a significant incentive to ignore the Miranda warnings. . . . . Police officers seeking physical evidence are not likely to view the loss of an unwarned confession as particularly great when weighed against the opportunity to recover highly probative nontestimonial evidence, such as a murder weapon or narcotics. . . . . In short, [failing to sup”

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

3. “existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means—to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal—would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.”

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