United States v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 federal appellate · 1 district · 23 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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The testimony of Fears ... did not come about by government exploitation of the illegal arrest or of anything incidental thereto. The source of the testimony lies in two much later events the occurrence of which were wholly independent of any fruit of the arrest. First, Fears' decision to plead guilty, and, second, Fears' subsequent determination to testify as a government witness. Without the first of these — the plea of guilty — a matter over which the government could exercise no control, the disclosure of Fears' identity which was an incident of the illegal arrest and tainted thereby was subject to no exploitation by the government which could be productive of Fears' testimony absent his consent. From a practical standpoint it was Fears' plea of guilty which made him available in the role of a witness against the appellants. His conviction upon that plea divested him of his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify... and subjected him to being called by the government as a witness. * * * * * * "Fears' decision, and the testimony it ultimately prompted, involved the exercise of those attributes of will, perception, memory and volition unique to the individual human personality which serve to distinguish the evidentiary character of a witness from the relative immutability of inanimate evidence [citations omitted]. And the exercise of such attributes can, and under the circumstances here presented do, effect an attenuation dissipating any taint which pervaded the origina”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 65 Md. App. 321 - Ellison v. State · State v. Washington

2. “While the unlawful arrests did serve to result in a disclosure of the true identities of Fears, Johnson and Hoffman, all of whom had registered at the motel under other names, the existence of these persons, their association together, and the fact that some stolen money orders had been left behind in the motel room occupied by one of them, were facts which became known apart from any disclosure resulting from the arrest and unlawful search and seizure. These facts supplied an adequate basis for the investigation which followed and culminated in the filing of the informations. In our opinion it would be naive to assume that but for the unlawful arrest the trio would “have blended back into the mass of the population, and would have remained at large” as appellants contend.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Gifford

3. “Fears' decision, and the testimony it ultimately prompted, involved the exercise of those attributes of will, perception, memory and volition unique to the individual human personality which serve to distinguish the evidentiary character of a witness from the relative immutability of inanimate evidence [citations omitted]. And the exercise of such attributes can, and under the circumstances here presented do, effect an attenuation dissipating any taint which pervaded the original disclosure of the existence and identity of the witness.”

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