265 F. Supp. 2d 545 - Wallace v. Price’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, was the informant “acting under instructions” from the government to obtain information from the defendant? [Matteo, 171 F.3d] at 893-94. Second, was there a "quid pro quo — in which the informant receive^] some type of benefit, even if nonpecuniary, in exchange for assisting the authorities!?]” Id. at 894. Third, was there a past agency relationship between the informant and the government? Id. at 893; Brink, 39 F.3d at 423 . Fourth, was the informant "ostensibly a mere fellow inmate ...” id. at 893, thus, hiding from the defendant the fact that he is talking to a government agent? United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 , 272-73, 100 S.Ct. 2183 , 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). Fifth, was the defendant "in custody at the time” and, therefore, subject to the “ 'subtle influences that will make him particularly susceptible to the ploys of undercover [g]overnment agents!?]’ ” Matteo, 171 F.3d at 895 (quoting United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 , 274, 100 S.Ct. 2183 , 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980)). Finally, was the informant a "trusted friend” and, therefore "more likely to” obtain “incriminating statements” from the defendant? Id. at 894-95.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ayers v. Hudson