United States v. Pulliam’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he exclusionary rule reaches not only primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure, but also evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality or fruit of the poisonous tree.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Ankeny · LASTINE v. STATE

2. “[A]ssume that [the passenger] never got into the car with [the driver], but instead walked off on his own while [the driver] drove away with the gun in the car. Imagine further that the officers stopped the car, found the gun, learned that it belonged to [the passenger], and then went to [the passenger’s] home and illegally detained him. In this hypothetical situation, the gun’s discovery is not the product of [the passenger’s] illegal detention, since the gun was found before the detention even occurred. To say that the gun would have been found even if he had not been detained is merely to recognize that the illegality, on its own, is not a sufficient or even a contributing cause of the gun’s discovery. The gun would thus be admissible without any consideration of an “exception” to the exclusionary rule.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 858 F. Supp. 2d 432 - United States v. Fraguela-Casanova

3. “See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. United States v. Izguerra-Robles