Beed v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

152 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 158 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It was police misconduct that was intended to be inhibited by Miranda, . . . and its progeny and not the making of incriminating statements. Statements which do not result from in-custody interrogation are not barred . . . Spontaneous, voluntary and unsolicited statements made when an accused, although in custody, is not being interrogated are admissible . . . (citations omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Scherrer v. State · Douglas v. State

2. “Although the reliability of eyewitness identification is normally a question for the jury, the fundamental fairness of identification procedures addresses itself to the trial court. . . . Although the question whether a pretrial photograph identification procedure is unduly prejudicial may be a mixed question of law and fact,... we should not reverse the trial judge’s decision unless, viewing the totality of the circumstances, it is clearly erroneous. . . . Identification testimony is properly admissible, if from the totality of the circumstances the confrontation did not give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misiden-tification. . . . [Citations omitted.] The test we apply in such identifications is based on factors stated in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed. 2d 140 (1977). McCraw v. State, 262 Ark. 707 , 561 S.W.2d 71 . They are: the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the degree of attention of the witness, the accuracy of the prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation and the time between the crime and the confrontation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 22 Ark. App. 73 - Ashley v. State

3. “The affidavit was not sufficient, however, in that it failed to disclose how the reliable informant knew that the ring and the other property described in the warrant were in the house to be searched. It was merely recited that the informant had said Bennie Beed had resided at the described premises during the time he was being sought by the officers for these crimes and that the property described was hidden in the house. The statement of this conclusion without any statement of underlying circumstances from which the informant arrived at it was insufficient to meet the test for showing probable cause for the search.”

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