State v. Simien’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"During the course of the trial the State offered in evidence a print of defendant's left thumb taken shortly after he was imprisoned in the jail on February 27, and also a latent print taken from the automobile in which the young man and the girl were sitting when they were approached by their assailant; and the State identified the latent print obtained from the car with the print of the defendant's left thumb taken shortly after his arrest. Counsel objected to the introduction of this evidence on the ground that defendant had not been advised of his right to counsel at the time the thumb print was taken following his arrest, and that he was not at that time told that information thus obtained could constitute evidence against him. The defendant bases this argument on the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States * * * which provide that no person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself. The basis of the argument is invalid. Fingerprinting is not considered within the privilege against self-incrimination. United States v. Kelly (C.C.A.2d), 55 F.2d 67 ; see 8 Wigmore on Evidence, secs. 2263, 2265, pp. 378, 386, (McNaughton rev. 1961); 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence, 12th ed. 1955, sec. 664, p. 580; Annotation, Fingerprints, palmprints, or bare footprints as evidence, 28 A.L.R.2d 1115 ; Model Code of Evidence (American Law Institute 1942), Rule 205(a)."”

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

2. ““You are instructed that you must determine whether or not the purported confession of the defendant in this case was freely and voluntarily given by the defendant and accept or reject it accordingly. That is to say, if you find that the purported confession of the defendant was not voluntarily given, but was only given under the inducement of promise of a law enforcement officer, such as a promise to the defendant that a person near and dear to him would not be involved in the case or picked up by law enforcement officials if the defendant would give a statement, then, and in such event, you must reject the statement and give it no consideration whatsoever in your deliberation. “If, on the other hand, you determine that the confession was freely and voluntarily given by the defendant, then, and in such event, you may consider the statement as evidence in this case. How ever, the weight to be afforded such confession or any portion thereof is for your determination. Auy confcssiois should be received with grecit cautiou, and, although a free and voluntary confession by a person accused of a crime is evidence against him, it is with the jury to attach to such a confession the weight to which it is entitled." (Emphasis ours).”

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