People v. D'Angelo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The policy considerations which moved us to adopt the objective test of entrapment compel with equal force the conclusion that the judge and not the jury must determine its existence. The thesis is that law enforcement conduct which essentially manufactures crime is a corruptive use of governmental authority which, when used to obtain a conviction, taints the judiciary which tolerates its use. It is a practice which relies for its success upon judicial indifference, if not approval, and it must be deterred. Its deterrence is a duty which transcends the determination of guilt or innocence in a given case and stands ultimately as the responsibility of an incorruptible judiciary. As Mr. Justice Roberts pointed out in Sorrells: ‘The protection of its own functions and the preservation of the purity of its own temple belongs only to the court. It is the province of the court and of the court alone to protect itself and the government from such prostitution of the criminal law.’ 287 U.S. at 457 , 53 S. Ct. at 218 . (Concurring opinion) Aside from the forceful policy considerations which dictate judicial vigilance in guarding against and precluding the use of improper law enforcement tactics in the judicial process, there are pragmatic reasons why the duty should not be passed along to the jury. A jury verdict of guilty provides no evaluation of the challenged police conduct in the case and gives no guidance by which to measure the propriety of future official conduct. Similarly, a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Tipton

2. “When an accused claims entrapment he is asserting, in essence, entitlement to the benefit of a judicial policy that his claim, if true, is a bar to the prosecution of the case. His claim does not involve an assessment of guilt or innocence and, in fact, is irrelevant to it. It is in that respect that the entrapment claim is unique and distinguishable from the more common defenses in criminal cases such as alibi, insanity, self-defense, lack of specific intent and the like, which assert the absence of one or more elements of the crime charged and involve therefore the assessment of guilt or innocence. The defense of entrapment is not interjected to establish the absence of an essential element of the crime but to present facts collateral or incidental to the criminal act which justify acquittal on the ground of an overriding public policy to deter instigation of crime by enforcement officers in order to get a conviction. [ Id. at 179 , 257 N.W.2d 655 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Maffett

3. ““The purpose of the entrapment doctrine is to deter unlawful government activities and to preclude the implication of judicial approval of impermissible government conduct.” ( 401 Mich. 167, 173 , 257 N.W.2d 655, 658 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Tipton