Lodowski v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 162 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 168 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he constitutional inquiry is not whether the conduct of [the authorities] was shocking, but whether [the accused’s] confession was free and voluntary, viz, whether it was extracted by any sort of threats, or violence, or obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, or by the exertion of any improper influence____ Otherwise stated, the test of the admissibility of [a] confession is whether [the accused’s] will was overborne at the time he confessed ...; or whether his confession was the product of a rational intellect and a free will ...; or whether his statement was “freely self-determined.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Green v. State · Hof v. State

2. “Generally, comparable provisions of the two constitutions are deemed to be in pari materia. Here the relevant comparable provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions were adopted in times not far removed from each other____ [T]he concern with self-incrimination, assistance of counsel and due process of law was shared by those who framed the Federal Constitution and those who framed the Maryland Constitution. This' concern on the part of the drafters of each constitution was implanted in the same climate and nurtured by the same hopes and fears. The provisions, so alike in aim and content, were proposed and accepted' by those anxious to preserve the freedom and rights they had so arduously won----We cannot say, in the frame of reference here, that the Federal provisions and the State provisions are to be construed and applied differently. This view is amply supported by what we have said in the past.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 147 Md. App. 1 - Ashford v. State

3. “Article 22 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights declares “[t]hat no man ought to be compelled to give' evidence against himself in a criminal case.” We said in Blum v. State that the Fifth Amendment was in pari materia with Article 22. We iterated this view in Richardson v. State stating that “the privilege against compelled self-incrimination in Article 22 ... has long been recognized as being in pari materia with its federal counterpart.” See also State v. Panagoulis; Brown v. State.... Lodowski urges that we diverge from the rationale of the holding in Burbine as to the Fifth Amendment and hold that under Article 22 his statement was inadmissible because the conduct of the police negated any ability he had to waive effectively his privilege against self-incrimination.... We decline to deviate on a State level under Article 22 from the rationale of Burbine regarding the Fifth Amendment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 147 Md. App. 1 - Ashford v. State