State v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

211 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 211 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The result is that in joint trials of defendants it is necessary to exclude extrajudicial confessions unless all portions which implicate defendants other than the declarant can be deleted without prejudice either to the State or the declarant. If such deletion is not possible, the State must choose between relinquishing the confession or trying the defendants separately.”

   19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hardy · State v. Gonzalez

2. ““It has been the law of this State from its beginning that an extrajudicial confession of guilt by an accused is admissible against him only when it is voluntary. State v. Vickers, 274 N.C. 311 , ...... S.E. 2d ......; State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69 , 150 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Warren, 235 N.C. 117 , 68 S.E. 2d 779 ; State v. Roberts, 12 N.C. 259 . When an investigating officer ‘offers some suggestion of hope or fear ... to one suspected of crime and thereby induces a statement in the nature of a confession, the decisions are at one in adjudging such statement to be involuntary in law, and hence incompetent as evidence. . . .’ (Citations omitted.) State v. Biggs, 224 N.C. 23, 26-27 , 29 S.E. 2d 121, 123 . Whether conduct on the part of investigating officers amounts to a threat or promise which will render a subsequent confession involuntary and incompetent is a question of law, and the decision of the trial judge is reviewable upon appeal. State v. Biggs, supra.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Smith

3. ““In the instant case the police officer while questioning the defendant, then in jail custody, said to defendant: ‘That if he wanted to talk to me then I would be able to testify that he talked to me and was cooperative.’ This statement by a person in authority was a promise which gave defendant a hope for lighter punishment. It was made by the officer before the defendant made his confession, and the officer’s statement was one from which defendant could gather some hope of benefit by confessing. The total circumstances surrounding the defendant’s confession impels the conclusion that there was aroused in him an ‘emotion of hope’ so as to render the confession involuntary.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Smith