Hendricks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In order for a confession to be admitted, whenever a question arises as to its voluntariness, the issue is controlled by the constitutional standard of voluntariness alike in both state and federal prosecutions. Malloy v. Hogan, (1964) 378 U.S. 1 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 , 12 L.Ed.2d 653 . To be voluntary a confession 'must not be extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor be obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, nor by the exertion of any improper influence.' Shotwell Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., (1963) 371 U.S. 341 , 83 S.Ct. 448 , 9 L.Ed.2d 357 quoting Bram v. U.S., (1897) 168 U.S. 532 , 18 S.Ct. 183 , 42 L.Ed. 568 ; Ashby v. State, (1976) [ 265 Ind. 316 ], 354 N.E.2d 192 . "A prior involuntary statement may render a second or subsequent statement inadmissible: 'Of course, after an accused has once let the cat out of the bag by confessing, no matter what the inducement, he is never thereafter free of the psychological and practical disadvantages of having confessed. U.S. v. Bayer, (1947) 331 U.S. 532 at 540 , 67 S.Ct. 1394 at 1398 , 91 L.Ed. 1654 at 1660 . However, a prior involuntary confession does not render subsequent statements inadmissible per se. 'But this Court has never gone so far as to hold that making a confession under circumstances which preclude its use, perpetually disables the confessor from making a usable one after these conditions have been removed.' U.S. v. Bayer, supra, 331 U.S. at 541 , 67 S.Ct. at 1398 , 91 L.Ed. at 1660 . Neither”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clark v. State · Abner v. State

2. “for any subsequent statement to be admissible there must be a break in the intervening chain of events sufficient to insulate the latter from the former. As decided above, however, the most damaging admissions to Officer Criswell were volunteered by appellant; and, while the remarks suppressed by the trial court as being the product of improper custodial interrogation might have been sufficient to”

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