State v. Gaw’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, there must be substantial evidence to support the ruling. [T]he facts and reasonable inferences from such facts are considered favorably to the trial court's ruling and contrary evidence and inferences are disregarded. In reviewing the trial court's overruling of a motion to suppress, this Court considers the evidence presented at both the suppression hearing and at trial to determine whether sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the trial court's ruling. Deference is given to the trial court's superior opportunity to determine the credibility of witnesses. This Court gives deference to the trial court's factual findings but reviews questions of law de novo. [ 3 ]”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rumbaugh · State v. Perry

2. “1. The trial court erred in admitting the statements Bruce made during police interrogation because they arose out of a custodial interrogation without a Miranda warning; -and 2. The written judgment is in error in that it states that Bruce is sentenced to ninéty-nine years in prison for each of Counts I, II, and III because this conflicts with the trial court’s oral pronouncement in court that it was sentencing Bruce to life in prison for each of those counts. Principles of Review A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress will be reversed only if it is clearly erroneous. The trial court’s ruling will be deemed clearly erroneous if, after review of the entire record, this Court is left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. This Court defers to the trial court’s factual findings and' credibility determinations and considers all evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Whether conduct violates the Fourth or Fifth Amendments is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. West · STATE OF MISSOURI v. JASON RUBIN BRUCE

3. “a police protocol for custodial interrogation that calls for giving no warnings of the rights to silence and counsel until interrogation has produced a confession.... [T]he interrogating officer follows it with Miranda warnings and then leads the suspect to cover the same ground a second time. The question ... is the admissibility of the repeated statement.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Missouri v. Timothy T. McClendon · STATE OF MISSOURI v. HEATHER DAWN BENNETT