State v. Marquardt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Marquardt has not argued on appeal that the other three Leon disqualifying circumstances present a bar to the application of the good faith exception in this case. We take this as a concession that those disqualifying circumstances do not apply here. We note, however, that with respect to the Chippewa County case, Mar- quardt requested a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), on the issue of whether the warrant application contained material misstatements and omissions. See State v. Marquardt, 247 Wis.2d 765 , 635 N.W.2d 188 . This issue corresponds to the first Leon disqualifying circumstance. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 923 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (citing Franks). The court of appeals did not reach the Franks issue, see Marquardt, 247 Wis.2d 765 , 635 N.W.2d 188 , and it appears that Marquardt has abandoned his argument on the applicability of the first Leon circumstance. Although he made minimal reference to Franks and the first Leon circumstance in one of his briefs- and at oral argument, he has not expressly argued that this court should decide whether the first Leon circumstance applies and he has not requested that this court remand for a Franks hearing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 156 So. 3d 464 - Bill Paul Marquardt v. State of Florida

2. “Investigator Price [of the Chippewa County Sheriffs office] reports that after finding the body of Mary J. Mar-quardt, he spoke with her husband, Alfred E. Marquardt. Mr. Marquardt informed him that he and Mary have a son, Bill Marquardt, who, since the location of Ms. Marquardt’s body had not been seen or heard from. Alfred Mar-quardt further informed Investigator Price that Bill Marquardt owned with Alfred Marquardt a cabin in which Bill resided at E27505 County Highway M, Town of Fairchild, County of Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Investigator Price further reports that in examining the body of Mary J. Mar-quardt and the scene where she was found, it appeared as though among the wounds incurred by her was a knife wound. Also at the scene, officers were able to locate a number of footprints that may be suitable for comparison with the shoes that made them. Investigator Barnier reports that in checking Eau Claire County tax rolls, he learned that a cabin ... located at E27505 [County] Highway M, Town of Fairchild, Eau Claire County, [is] owned by Alfred and Bill Marquardt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 156 So. 3d 464 - Bill Paul Marquardt v. State of Florida

3. “"When a defendant seeks to proceed pro se, the circuit court must insure that the defendant (1) has knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to counsel, and (2) is competent to proceed pro se." If these conditions are not satisfied, the trial court must prevent the defendant from self-representation because to do otherwise would deny the defendant the constitutional right to counsel. If these conditions are satisfied, the trial court must allow the defendant to represent himself or herself, because to do otherwise would deny the defendant the constitutional right to self-representation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2006 WI App 100 - Dane County Department of Human Services v. Susan P. S.