Phelper v. Decker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

62 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(C)onsent to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but should be shown by clear and convincing evidence.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 75 Wis. 2d 303 - Kelly v. State · Paprskar v. State

2. ““ ‘Until [Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 ] an illegal arrest did not render a subsequent confession or verbal statement inadmissible as illegally seized evidence, barring exceptional circumstances. But in Wong Sun the Court held that confessions and other verbal statements could be just as much the fruit of the poisonous tree as more tangible pieces of physical evidence. * * * * * * “ ‘... [N]ot every piece of evidence uncovered after an illegal arrest is automatically excluded. Rather, the question to be asked each time is: “‘[wjhether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ Maguire, Evidence of Guilt, 221 (1959).” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. at 488 , 83 S.Ct. at 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d at 455 . In the Wong Sun opinion itself, the Court considered two situations where incriminating statements were given by a suspect. The first statement, obtained from James Wah Toy, was made immediately after six or seven officers had illegally broken into Toy’s Laundry and chased him to the back room. Under those circumstances, the Court held that “it is unreasonable to infer that Toy’s response [to questions by the officers] was sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion.” 371 U.S. at 486 , 83 S.Ct. at 417 , 9 L.Ed.2”

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

3. ““Since the Texas Statute is devoid of any language that requires a finding that the material must have no redeeming social value, it may be constitutionally suspect.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Stein v. Batchelor