374 So. 2d 1189 - State v. Stevenson’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 1998
9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 354 So. 2d 186 - State v. Hills · 349 So. 2d 318 - State v. Hutto · 328 So. 2d 149 - State v. Simmons · 363 So. 2d 684 - State v. Johnson · 339 So. 2d 328 - State v. Haynes
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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“cannot simply rely on general testimony of officers not present that they witnessed no coercion, intimidation or other undue influence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.