Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . [A] specter has arisen in this case that deserves to be laid to rest. It is now a well-settled and familiar concept, as enunciated by Aguilar and Spinelli , that supporting affidavits in an application for a search warrant must attest to the credibility of an informant and the reliability of his information. ... We have discovered no case that extends this requirement to the identified bystander or victim-eyewitness to a crime, and we now hold that no such requirement need be met... . Such observers are seldom involved with the miscreants or the crime. Eyewitnesses by definition are not passing along idle rumor, for they either have been the victims of the crime or have otherwise seen some portion of it. A ‘neutral and detached magistrate’ could adequately assess the probative value of an eyewitness’s information because, if it is reasonable and accepted as true, the magistrate must believe that it is based upon first hand knowledge. Thus we conclude that Aguilar and Spinelli requirements are limited to the informant situation only.” 457 F.2d at 1238 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Saunders v. Commonwealth

2. “"I The trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained due to an illegal arrest and illegal search. II The trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for a preliminary hearing prior to trial. III The trial court erred in denying appellant's motions for severance and/or continuance. IV The trial court erred in quashing a subpoena duces tecum for the tax records of the prosecuting witness. V The trial court erred in allowing a witness to testify about a previous common non-related conversation with appellant. VI The trial court erred in unreasonably restricting appellant's cross-examination of the co-defendant and other witnesses. VII The trial court erred in not allowing appellant to put on testimony of subpoenaed witnesses. VIII The trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for mistrial. IX The trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for directed verdict of acquittal."”

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