State v. Pappas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

78 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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We consistently have held that [t]he quantum of evidence necessary to establish probable cause exceeds mere suspicion, but is substantially less than that required for conviction.... The existence of probable cause does not turn on whether the defendant could have been convicted on the same available evidence.... [P]roof of probable cause requires less than proof by a preponderance of the evidence.... Probable cause, broadly defined, comprises such facts as would reasonably persuade an impartial and reasonable mind not merely to suspect or conjecture, but to believe that criminal activity has occurred.... The probable cause determination is, simply, an analysis of probabilities.... The determination is not a technical one, but is informed by the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent [persons], not legal technicians, act.... Probable cause is not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.... Reasonable minds may disagree as to whether a particular [set of facts] establishes probable cause.... "The determination of whether probable cause exists under the fourth amendment to the federal constitution ... is made pursuant to a totality of circumstances test.... The probable cause test then is an objective one.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 185 Conn. App. 308 - State v. Correa

2. “The trial court . . . may also consider the following factors: (1) whether the theory or technique can be, and has been, tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; and (3) the known or potential rate of error, including the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation. . . . Furthermore . . . the prestige and background of the expert witness supporting the evidence can play a role in determining whether a novel technique employed by that individual is likely to have any scientific merit. . . . The extent to which the scientific technique in question relies on subjective interpretations and judgments by the testifying expert, rather than on objectively verifiable criteria, can also be a factor. . . . Courts may also consider whether a testifying expert can present and explain the data and methodology underlying his or her scientific testimony in such a manner that the fact finder can reasonably and realistically draw its own conclusions therefrom . . . and whether the scientific technique underlying the proffered expert testimony was developed and implemented solely to develop evidence for in-court use, or whether the technique has been developed and used for extrajudicial purposes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 4754 - State v. Grant, No. Cr6-481390 (Apr. 9, 2002)

3. “Whether the trial court properly found that the facts submitted were enough to support a finding of probable cause is a question of law.... The trial court's determination on [that] issue, therefore, is subject to plenary review on appeal.... Probable cause to search exists if: (1) there is probable cause to believe that the particular items sought to be seized are connected with criminal activity or will assist in a particular apprehension or conviction ... and (2) there is probable cause to believe that the items sought to be seized will be found in the place to be searched.... Probable cause, broadly defined, [comprises] such facts as would reasonably persuade an impartial and reasonable mind not merely to suspect or conjecture, but to believe that criminal activity has occurred.... Reasonable minds may disagree as to whether a particular affidavit establishes probable cause.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 185 Conn. App. 308 - State v. Correa