State v. Lapointe’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
123 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably State v. Reynolds (2003), State v. Hines (1998)
123 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Ohio v. Roberts · Colorado v. Connelly · California v. Green · Mincey v. Arizona
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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The defendant claims that this second written statement was not voluntarily made. Reference is made to section C(a)(v) addressing the law and facts concerning whether a statement is knowingly and voluntarily made. That section is incorporated by reference herein. The Court considers the credible evidence established concerning the taking of the written statement. The statement process started at approximately 4:30 a.m. and went to B a.m. The police utilized the same process they had for the previous statements. The Court considers this statement-taking process with the previous statements taken. The defendant gave the statement after he had CT Page 12142-ay learned that Virginia Quintero had implicated him in the injuries to the children and Virginia Quintero. There was no evidence of threats, physical abuse, or deprivation of food and drink by the police. Moreover, there were periods of time that the defendant was alone in the room. Therefore, the Court finds, that the State sustained its burden of proof that the defendant's confession was voluntary and that the conduct of the police did not overbear the defendant's will to resist in bringing about the statement. In consideration of all the defendant's statements given to Lt. Ricci and Officer Velez, the Court has considered the time that the defendant was with the police, from approximately 8:30 p.m. on July 17, 1998 to 5 a.m. on July 18, 1998-. The mere fact that admissions are made by an accused after a long period of int”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding a defendant's confession to determine whether it was the product of the defendant's own volition, no matter how impaired . . . or whether pressures exerted by officials have overborne the suspect's will, considering both the conduct of the officials and the capacity of the subject to resist pressure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“While . . . admissions of culpability may lead the police either to arrest a suspect or to place restraints on his freedom approximating an arrest, the police in this case never altered the circumstances of their interviews of the defendant in such a way that his initial noncustodial status became custodial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bartelt
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.