State v. Hamons’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 42 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination requires that suspects be accorded the assistance of counsel during custodial interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 469 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966). “The Sixth Amendment right to counsel arises when judicial proceedings have been initiated against a suspect ‘whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.’ Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S., 682, 689 , 32 L. Ed. 2d 411 , 92 S. Ct. 1877 (1972); see State v. Norris, 244 Kan. 326, 331-33 , 768 P.2d 296 (1989). A defendant’s statement elicited without the presence or aid of a lawyer after attachment of Sixth Amendment protections may not be used against the defendant at trial unless the State can show that the accused knowingly, voluntarily, and intélligendy waived the right to counsel. See Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 404-05 , 51 L. Ed. 2d 424 , 97 S. Ct. 1232 , reh. denied 431 U.S. 925 (1977). “In Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 299-300 , 101 L. Ed. 2d 261 , 108 S. Ct. 2389 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held: ‘So long as the accused is made aware of the “dangers and disadvantages of self-representation” during post-indictment questioning, by use of Miranda warnings, his waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at such questioning is “knowing and intelligent.” ’ “Because the defendant in Patterson was informed that he had been formally charged, the United States Supreme Court did not a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Gallegos

2. ““ ‘ “Deliberately and with premeditation” means to have thought over the matter beforehand. However, to constitute deliberation and premeditation, no particular time need intervene between formation of the intention and the doing of the act. It is sufficient if they actually existed, with a full appreciation of the result likely to follow from the act, at the time the act was committed, however short the time of their existence may have been.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Moncla

3. “where the State's case is built on direct evidence, circumstantial evidence that someone other than the defendant committed the crime is irrelevant in the absence of other evidence to connect such third person to the crime.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cory Glen Hamons v. David R. McKune Attorney General of Kansas