Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 206 CONN 182 - State v. Schroff

State v. Schroff’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
states following
February 2009
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently February 2009 · most notably State v. Pinder (1999), State v. Correa (1997)

41 state decisions

210198819902000decided

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 Wong Sun v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Brady v. United States · Jackson v. Denno · Brown v. Illinois

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

  1. “We have stated that the test of voluntariness is whether an examination of all the circumstances discloses that the conduct of law enforcement officials was such as to overbear [the defendant's] will to resist and bring about confessions not freely self-determined. . . . The ultimate test remains . . . Is the confession the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker? If it is, if he has willed to confess, it may be used against him. If it is not, if his will has been overborne and his CT Page 11984 capacity for self-determination critically impaired, the use of his confession offends due process.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We have stated that the test of voluntariness is whether an examination of all the circumstances discloses that the conduct of law enforcement officials was such as to overbear [the defendant's] will to resist and bring about confessions not freely self-determined The ultimate test remains . . . Is the confession the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker? If it is, if he has willed to confess, it may be used against him. If it is not, if his will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired, the use of his confession offends due process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Factors that may be taken into account, upon a proper factual showing, include: the youth of the accused; his lack of education; his intelligence, the lack of any advice as to his constitutional rights; the length of detention; the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning; and the use of physical punishment, such as the deprivation of food and sleep . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.