Brenk v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 77 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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] search warrant may be issued by any judicial officer of this state only upon affidavit sworn to before a judicial officer which establishes the grounds for its issuance.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Green v. Byrd · 81 Ark. App. 427 - Lancaster v. State

2. “In the recent case McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 , 111 S. Ct. 2204 (1991), the Supreme Court held an accused’s invocation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel during a judicial proceeding does not constitute an invocation of the right to counsel derived by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), from the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against compelled self-incrimination. As in the McNeil case, appellant invoked his Sixth Amendment right to counsellor a judicial proceeding unrelated to the present charge, but did not make any indication that he only wished to deal with the police through counsel and, therefore, did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is case specific. Appellant’s request for counsel to represent him at the revocation hearing applied only to the revocation matter and not to any other potential charges. Since appellant did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel by indicating that he wished to deal with the police only through counsel, the Edwards rule which appellant cites does not apply.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Olive v. State

3. “Since we have determined that luminol tests done without follow-up procedures are unreliable to prove the presence of human blood or that the substance causing the reaction was related to the alleged crime, we find it was error for the trial court to admit the evidence of luminol testing done by Mr. Smith where there was no follow-up testirig done to establish that the substance causing the luminol reaction was, in fact, human blood related to the alleged crime. See State v. Moody, 573 A.2d 716 (Conn. 1990); see also Lee v. State, 545 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. 1989); cf. Commonwealth v. Yesilciman, 550 N.E.2d 378 (Mass. 1990):”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Palmer v. State