State v. Beasley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In the United States Supreme Court, ‘[t]he test has been whether the totality of circumstances deprived the defendant of a “free choice to admit, to deny or.to refuse to answer,” Lisenba v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 219, 241 , 62 S.Ct. 280, 292 , 86 L.Ed. 166 , and whether physical or psychological coercion was of such a degree that “the defendant’s will was overborne at the time he confessed,” Haynes v. State of Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 513 , 83 S.Ct. 1336, 1343 , 10 L.Ed.2d 513 ; Lynumn v. State of Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 534 , 83 S.Ct. 917, 920 , 9 L.Ed.2d 922 . The duration and nature of incommunicado custody, the presence or absence of advice concerning the defendant’s constitutional rights, and the granting or refusal of requests to communicate with lawyers, relatives or friends have all been rightly regarded as important data bearing on the basic inquiry.’ (Dissenting opinion of Justice White in Miranda v. State of Arizona; see also dissenting opinion of Justice Clark therein; see also Davis v. State of North Carolina, October Term 1965, 384 U.S. 737 , 86 S.Ct. 1761 , 16 L.Ed.2d 895 .) We do not understand that Escobedo changed the totality of the circumstances test (as noted it considered five factors); and we consider it to be the proper test to be applied in determining the admissibility of statements offered in trials occurring prior to June 13, 1966. For trials after June 13, 1966, Miranda v. State of Arizona, October Term 1965, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S”

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

2. “We consider that we should rule on this contention under Rule 27.20(c) because a coerced confession can be challenged in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. [Citing and quoting from Fay v. Noia, supra, Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 , 43 S.Ct. 265 , 67 L.Ed. 543 , and Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 , 12 L.Ed.2d 653 .] Thus if the contention is true that defendant’s confession was inadmissible, as being procured in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, its use would be plain error affecting substantial rights from which we should find that manifest injustice resulted. Therefore, we will consider this contention. [Id. at 690]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martin v. Wyrick