328 So. 2d 149 - State v. Simmons’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. . . because of the State's burden it is required to rebut specific testimony introduced on behalf of defendant concerning factual circumstances which indicate coercive measures or intimidation, [citation omitted].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 381 So. 2d 826 - State v. Franklin · 400 So. 2d 1063 - State v. Martin

2. “the error might be eliminated upon another trial of the motion to suppress,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Edwards · 424 So. 2d 997 - State v. Jackson

3. “BY THE COURT: Okay, the Court is ready to render its ruling on the motion to suppress. After a review of the transcript of the November, 1992[sic] hearing which I held on defendant's motion to suppress, and the additional testimony of Officers Gibson and Vincent, the Court finds that: (1) The confession of defendant Shawn James Gaspard was given freely and voluntarily and not made under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements, or promises. (2) The defendant was handcuffed with one hand to a steel ring attached to a wall in the interview room, in a seated position for a period of up to six to seven hours. There was evidence that during his period of interrogation he was moved to another area for at least forty-five minutes while Detective Vincent interviewed co-defendant Mitchell Hebert in the interview room. (3) Defendant Gaspard was offered and given food and the use of the restroom facility during the initial period prior to 6:30 p.m., when the videotape was turned on. Again, at approximately eight o'clock Detective Vincent offered food to the defendant. (4) Defendant never once complained of any physical discomfort due to his being restrained to the wall. (5) The procedure use [sic] by the police to cuff defendant to the wall was done for security and safety reasons and not to obtain a confession from the defendant. (6) There is no evidence that defendant confessed due to any physical discomfort, lack of food, use of bathroom facilities, ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 709 So. 2d 213 - State v. Gaspard