MARTIN v. PHILLIPS’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Court thus concluded that Alford's plea was a constitutionally valid plea of guilty. This is so because an Alford plea involves an admission of the government's ability to secure a conviction--i.e., an admission of legal guilt--even though the defendant professes his factual innocence. In the end, however, the effect is the same: the defendant has pleaded guilty. Thus, even though an Alford plea and a nolo contendere plea might appear similar in certain respects, courts nonetheless recognize that an Alford plea is a guilty plea accompanied by protestations of innocence. ... Because we conclude that an Alford plea is a form of guilty plea, we have no difficulty concluding that Phillips's plea carries with it a guilty plea's preclusive effect. So long as Phillips's plea was both voluntary and reflected an intelligent choice among alternative options open to a defendant, it must be treated as any other guilty plea. Phillips does not assert that his plea was coerced or forced upon him in any way, and he admitted there was a factual basis for his conviction. Phillips's plea was therefore proper and could serve as an evidentiary basis for the district court presiding over the civil case against him to grant partial summary adjudication in favor of Martin.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. THACKER v. WALTON

2. “The defendant pleading 'Alford'. . . does not admit to committing the acts charged against him or her. But unlike a no contest plea, the defendant pleading 'Alford' goes one further and actually denies committing the acts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. COLEMAN

3. “a defendant admits there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. DUNIVAN