29 Wis. 2d 521 - Phillips v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

76 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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . the right to interrogate after arrest is limited and must be for the purpose of determining whether to release the suspect or if he has been arrested without a warrant to make a formal complaint. ... A detention for a period longer than is reasonably necessary for such limited purpose violates due process and renders inadmissible any confession obtained during the unreasonable period of the detention. “. . . While one may be detained by the police and interrogated to secure sufficient evidence to either charge him with a crime or to release him, the police cannot continue to detain an arrested person to ‘sew up’ the case by obtaining or extracting a confession or culpable statements to support the arrest or the guilt. . . .””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 68 Wis. 2d 604 - Klonowski v. State · 59 Wis. 2d 66 - State v. Wallace

2. ““. . . [T] he right to interrogate after arrest is limited and must be for the purpose of determining whether to release the suspect or if he has been arrested without a warrant to make a formal complaint. ... A detention for a period longer than is reasonably necessary for such limited purpose violates due process and renders inadmissible any confession obtained during the unreasonable period of the detention.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 68 Wis. 2d 604 - Klonowski v. State · 53 Wis. 2d 420 - Zdiarstek v. State

3. ““ ‘Although the rule of voluntariness is easy to state, the determination of what is a voluntary confession in á given fact situation may be difficult. In evaluating the facts for such purpose, the principle adopted by the United States supreme court is to consider the “totality of the circumstances” — all the facts surrounding the making of the confession. Fikes v. Alabama (1957), 352 U. S. 191 , 77 Sup. Ct. 281, 1 L. Ed. (2d) 246.’ “The individual factors affecting voluntariness and contributing to the totality of the circumstances include denial of rights, questioning, threats, status of accused, nature of coercion, second confession, special techniques and previous experience with police. Defender Newsletter, Vol. II, No. 5, Sept. 1965. The process of determining voluntariness is one of weighing the circumstances of the police pressure against the power of resistance of the person confessing. What is overpowering to a weak mind or a first offender may be ineffectual against an experienced criminal. Stein v. New York (1953), 346 U. S. 156, 185 , 73 Sup. Ct. 1077, 97 L. Ed. 1522 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 53 Wis. 2d 345 - Krueger v. State