State v. Ray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Mere advice or exhortation by the police that it would be better for the accused to tell the truth, when unaccompanied by either a threat or a promise, does not ... make a subsequent confession involuntary.” People v. Boyde, 46 Cal. 3d 212, 238 , 758 P.2d 25, 39 , 250 Cal. Rptr. 83, 97 (1988), aff’d 494 U.S. 370 , 110 S. Ct. 1190 , 108 L. Ed. 2d 316 (1990).... A defendant’s statement is inadmissible only if the totality of the circumstances shows that the police offered the defendant a benefit in exchange for the statement---- The benefit offered to a defendant must be definite in order to render his statement involuntary.... If the benefit is offered in exchange for testimony, and the offer is definite, then the confession is involuntary and must be suppressed. In State v. Mayhew, 216 Neb. 761 , 346 N.W.2d 236 (1984), the county attorney told the defendant that if the defendant told the truth, the county attorney would recommend that the defendant be sentenced on the instant crime concurrently with the unrelated sentence the defendant was then serving. In State v. Smith, 203 Neb. 64 , 277 N.W.2d 441 (1979), the police officer interrogating the 15-year-old defendant told the defendant that if he confessed, the officer would try to get the case transferred to juvenile court. In both cases, this court held the confessions thereby obtained were involuntary and improperly admitted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Martin

2. “In determining the correctness of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence claimed to be constitutionally inadmissible, an appellate court will uphold the trial court’s findings of fact unless those findings are clearly erroneous. In reviewing a trial court’s findings on a suppression motion, an appellate court recognizes the trial court as the “trier of fact” and takes into consideration that the trial court has observed witnesses testifying regarding such motion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Martin

3. ““ Q. What did you say to him? “A. That it would be best for him to be truthful with me at this point so we can get this matter resolved and find out exactly what happened. “Q. Did you tell him his cooperation would be noted and brought to the attention of anyone? “A. Yes, sir. “Q. What did you tell him? “A. I told him that his cooperation and his truthfulness in this matter would be taken to the county attorney’s office. “ Q. Anything else? “A. No....””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Martin