McClain v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 38 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Had appellant been subjected to interrogation after his arrest, he would clearly have had the right to the presence and advice of counsel. Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ; Beck v. State, (1968) 250 Ind. 276 , 235 N.E.2d 699 . The right to counsel at such point is available as a safeguard for the privilege against self-incrimination. Clearly the [penis] swab emission test does not involve attempts to get testimony or assertions from the person examined, and there is not need for counsel to be present to protect that privilege. Schmerber v. California, [ 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966)]. Had appellant been subjected to a lineup he would have been entitled to the presence of counsel. United States v. Wade, (1967) 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 . The right to counsel at such point exists in order to safeguard the right at trial to confront the identification witnesses. Persons subjected to swab emission tests should not experience special difficulty in probing, testing and otherwise challenging through cross-examination or contrary evidence, the results of such tests. Such tests are not critical stages of the proceedings and there is no right to the presence and advice of counsel during them.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 599 So. 2d 951 - Ormond v. State

2. ““Affidavit—Contents and form— Sworn testimony in lieu of or in addition to affidavit.—(a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, no warrant for search or arrest shall be issued until there is filed with the judge an affidavit, particularly describing the house or place to be searched and the things to be searched for, or particularly describing the person to be arrested, and alleging substantially the offense in relation thereto, and that the affiant believes and has good cause to believe that such things as are to be searched for are there concealed, or that the person to be arrested committed said offense, and setting forth the facts then in knowledge of the affiant or information based on credible hearsay, constituting the probable cause. When based on hearsay, the affidavit shall contain reliable information establishing the credibility of the source and of each of the declarants of the hearsay and establishing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished.””

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

3. “"[N]o warrant for search or arrest shall be issued until there is filed with the judge an affidavit, particularly describing ... the place to be searched and the things to be searched for, ... and alleging substantially the offense in relation thereto, and that the affiant believes and has good cause to believe that such things as are to be searched for are there concealed, or that the person to be arrested committed the offense, ... ."”

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