Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 218 CALAPP2D 199 - People v. Freeland

People v. Freeland’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
5
states following
January 1979
most recently cited

12 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Townsend v. Sain · Ker v. State of California · McNabb v. United States · Nardone v. United States

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

  1. ““[Ajbsence of coercion and inducement continues to be the sole criterion of confession admissibility in California criminal prosecutions; illegal detention is only one of the factors which determine whether the statement is voluntary. (Citations omitted) “As to the particular kind of evidence at issue, a confession, the ultimate test of admissibility remains that of volition in fact. If the individual’s ‘will was overborne’, if his confession was not ‘the product of a rational intellect and his free will,’ it is inadmissible because coerced, (citations omitted) If the individual confesses his offense because he wills to confess, his statement is the product of his own choice, not that of the illegal restraint. To borrow a phrase from another area of the law, the choice of the accused becomes an independent, intervening cause of his confession, and his illegal restraint becomes only a collateral circumstance, not a cause.””
    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.