State v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 168 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 171 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Our standard of review of a trial court's findings and conclusions in connection with a motion to suppress is well defined. A finding of fact will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings in the whole record .... [W]here the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision ....”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vicente v. Warden, No. Cv-01-0003386 (Oct. 31, 2002) · 171 Conn. App. 702 - State v. Martinez

2. “Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the CT Page 3342 officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that a felony has been committed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3339 - Superior Court v. Jenkins, No. Cr 00 0188017 (Mar. 26, 2002) · 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 13245 - State v. Paradis, No. Cr01 197032 (Oct. 18, 2002)

3. “If statements taken in violation of Miranda are admitted into evidence during a trial, their admission must be reviewed in light of the harmless error doctrine. ... The harmless error doctrine is rooted in the fundamental purpose of the criminal justice system, namely, to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent. ... Therefore, whether an error is harmful depends on its impact on the trier of fact and the result of the case. ... This court has held in a number of cases that when there is independent overwhelming evidence of guilt, a constitutional error would be rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ... When an [evidentiary] impropriety is of constitutional proportions, the state bears the burden of proving that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ... [W]e must examine the impact of the evidence on the trier of fact and the result of the trial. ... If the evidence may have had a tendency to influence the judgment of the jury, it cannot be considered harmless. ... That determination must be made in light of the entire record [including the strength of the state's case without the evidence admitted in error].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 169 Conn. App. 204 - State v. Baltas