State v. Cottier’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably State v. Klaudt (2009), State v. Wright (2009)
44 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Pellegrino · State v. Packed · State v. Engesser · State v. Davi · State v. Tuttle
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the conduct of law enforcement officials in creating pressure and (2) the suspect’s capacity to resist that pressure. On the latter factor, we examine such concerns as the defendant’s age; level of education and intelligence; the presence or absence of any advice to the defendant on constitutional rights; the length of detention; the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning; the use of psychological pressure or physical punishment, such as deprivation of food or sleep; and the defendant’s prior experience with law enforcement officers and the courts. Finally, [deception or misrepresentation by the officer receiving the statement may also be factors for the trial court to consider; however, the police may use some psychological tactics in interrogating a suspect.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Spaniol · State v. Wright“A trial court has discretion in the wording and arrangement of its jury instructions, and therefore we generally review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a particular instruction under the abuse of discretion standard. However, no court has discretion to give incorrect, misleading, conflicting, or confusing instructions; to do so constitutes reversible error if it is shown not only that the instructions were erroneous, but also that they were prejudicial.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Flactors for a trial court to consider in assessing trustworthiness of hearsay offered under the residual hearsay rule ... include: ... the existence of corroborating evidence....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sanders v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.