State v. Savinskiy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “objectively reasonably foreseeable that the questioning [would] lead to incriminating evidence concerning the offense for which the defendant has obtained counsel.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Savinskiy · 296 Or. App. 226 - State v. Allen

2. “Consequently, applying our case law, the state's Article I, section 11, violation mandates the suppression of all the prejudicial statements that defendant made during those interrogations-where defendant's counsel neither attended nor was notified of the interrogations-as well as any prejudicial physical evidence gathered as a result of those interrogations, including any evidence of defendant's then-uncharged conspiracy crimes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 295 Or. App. 17 - State v. Craigen

3. “"[T]he amount of overlapping evidence between these two cases is so substantial that any questioner would have reasonably foreseen that interrogating defendant about his conspiracies would elicit incriminating evidence about his previously charged conduct, because any incriminating evidence that the interrogators obtained relating to the conspiracies would also be incriminating as to defendant's original charges."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 296 Or. App. 226 - State v. Allen