Dycus v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the present case, the evidence when viewed in a light favorable to appellant discloses that the agents went to the Corner Pocket for the express purpose of meeting and attempting to purchase drugs from appellant. A surveillance crew was already in position outside the bar. Upon being introduced to appellant by their informant, the agents asked appellant if he could get them some marijuana. Appellant left the bar and returned 30 minutes later with two baggies of marijuana. Even when viewed in this light, the evidence is not sufficient to support the theory of entrapment. Entrapment occurs only when the criminal conduct was the product of the creative activity of law enforcement officials. * * * It does not arise if one is ready to commit the offense, given but the opportunity. * * * The decisions in cases involving the illegal sale of drugs are practically unanimous in holding that the offense of entrapment is not available where the only solicitation is an offer to buy. * * * Suspected persons can be tested by being offered an opportunity to transgress the law, although they may not be put under an extraordinary temptation or inducement.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rivera v. State

2. ““We .... agree with the pronouncements in Sherman, 356 U.S. at 372 , 78 S.Ct. at 821 , that ‘Entrapment occurs only when the criminal conduct was “the product of the creative activity” of law-enforcement officials’ It is, of course, conceivable that evidence be so clear and undisputed that entrapment could be decreed by a court as a matter of law. . . . Sorrells v. United States, supra, 287 U.S. at 452 , 53 S.Ct. 210 ; United States v. Costello, 5 Cir., 483 F.2d 1366, 1367 ; and see State v. Mendoza, 109 Ariz. 445 , 511 P.2d 627, 630 ; People v. Harris, 213 Cal.App.2d 365 , 28 Cal.Rptr. 766, 768 .” [Emphasis mine]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Janski v. State