Humphreys v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

75 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]n ruling on the admissibility of an in-custody statement, a trial court must determine whether, based upon the totality of the circumstances, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the statement was made freely and voluntarily. Unless clearly erroneous, a trial court’s findings as to factual determinations and credibility relating to the admissibility of the defendant’s statement at a Jackson v. Denno hearing will be upheld on appeal.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Norwood v. State · Lindsey v. State

2. “[T]he proper standard for determining the disqualification of a prospective juror based upon his views on capital punishment is whether the juror's views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath. This standard does not require that a juror's bias be proved with unmistakable clarity. Instead, the relevant inquiry on appeal is whether the trial court's finding that a prospective juror is disqualified is supported by the record as a whole. An appellate court ... must pay deference to the trial court's determination. This deference encompasses the trial court's resolution of any equivocations and conflicts in the prospective jurors' responses on voir dire. Whether to strike a juror for cause is within the discretion of the trial court and the trial court's rulings are proper absent some manifest abuse of discretion. The same standard applies to a court's decision to qualify a prospective juror over defendant's objection.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Willis v. State · 308 Ga. App. 176 - Walker v. State

3. “The state may inventory the contents of a car that has been lawfully impounded. Sams v. State, 265 Ga. 534, 535 (3) ( 459 SE2d 551 ) (1995). The test is whether, under the circumstances, the officer’s conduct in impounding the vehicle was reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Wright v. State, 276 Ga. 454, 461 (5) ( 579 SE2d 214 ) (2003).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. STROUD v. the STATE. · 324 Ga. App. 670 - Shaw v. State