3 Va. App. 260 - Harrison v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The test for voluntariness derives from federal constitutional law relating to the Fifth Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. In Stockton, we relied upon Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225 (1973), and concluded that in order to determine whether a statement is voluntary, we must decide, in light of the totality of the circumstances, whether the statement is the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker, or whether the maker’s will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired. 227 Va. at 140 , 314 S.E.2d at 381. When the scope of review and the test for voluntariness are considered together, the question that confronts us on this appeal becomes apparent. We must here determine whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the trial court was plainly wrong in concluding that Rodgers’ statement to the Chesterfield police was essentially a free and unconstrained choice on his part or, put another way, that his will was not overborne.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Legg · 11 Va. App. 461 - Mundy v. Commonwealth

2. “The Due Process Clause does not mandate that the police forgo all questioning, or that they be given carte blanche to extract what they can from a suspect. “The ultimate test remains that which has been the only clearly established test in Anglo-American courts for two hundred years: the test of voluntariness. Is the confession the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker? If it is, if he has willed to confess, it may be used against him. If it is not, if his will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired, the use of his confession offends due process.” Culombe v. Connecticut, supra, at 602. In determining whether a defendant’s will was overborne in a particular case, the Court has assessed the totality of all the. surrounding circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation. Some of the factors taken into account have included the youth of the accused, e.g., Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596 ; his lack of education, e.g., Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560 ; or his low intelligence, e.g., Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U.S. 191 ; the lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights, e.g., Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737 ; the length of detention, e.g., Chambers v. Florida, supra; the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning, e.g., Ash-craft v. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143 ; and the use of physical punishment such as the deprivation of food or sleep, e.g., Reck v.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Legg