State v. Caron’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 34 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he use of “hearsay” evidence is, per se, consistent with constitutional fundamental fairness “due process” guarantees as applicable to ... a proceeding for revocation of parole. In terms of policy, a minor use of hearsay testimony can be consistent with the informality and expedition desirable for the kind of revocation ... hearing now under scrutiny; therefore, we see no reason to prohibit hearsay evidence in such proceeding to the same extent it is prohibited in a criminal prosecution. We add the caveat, however, that if, in a given context, the hearsay evidence is unreasonably abundant and its substantive reliability highly suspect, a decision founded on it may be subject to vitiation for violation of “due process of law” fairness standards.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 174 W. Va. 236 - State v. Stuckey · Ingerson v. State

2. ““The further question remains whether the ‘evidence-exclusionary’ rule, as an independently operative remedy for violations of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States made binding on the States by Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (1961), has applicability to a hearing for revocation of a probation granted incident to the imposition, and suspension of the execution, of a sentence for guilt of crime (or for revocation of parole). “The Courts, federal and state, which have considered the question have, with virtual unanimity, answered it in the negative. (Citations omitted.) “The rationale of the decisions is that since the Federal Fourth Amendment ‘evidence-exclusionary’ rule is operative in any event in all ‘criminal prosecutions’, the additional furtherance of its policy objectives achieved by extending the rule to hearings for revocation of probation (or parole) is. insufficient to justify the concomitant impairment of the proper functioning of the probation-parole system. “We agree.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 169 Ind. App. 211 - Dulin v. State

3. ““The possession of any drug paraphernalia is a violation of law. Possession of marijuana is a violation of law. “I find from this evidence, both direct and circumstantial, that the defendant did violate the law on this occasion and, therefore, has violated the terms and conditions of his probation. And the only other consideration is whether or not that violation is of such a nature that the probation ought to be revoked. In some situations the Court has on occasion felt that the continuation of probation would be warranted and justified. I do not feel that way in this case. I think that the conditions and terms have been violated and the original sentence should, then, be reinstated and placed into effect. “The Court does determine that the State has satisfied its burden of proof in establishing a violation of probation. The probation is revoked.””

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