State v. Anders’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “At issue is whether Glosson’s holding extends to a codefendant informant who was not the direct target of the government agent. The Fourth District certified this question in Hunter as one of great importance. In Hunter the Fourth District directed that the non target co-defendant also be discharged, but it did so without discussion as to the reasons therefore. The basic rational of both Glosson and Hunter is that where the confidential informant has a personal stake in the outcome of case, whether it be monetary or personal liberty, and where he is, without supervision, permitted to detect crime previously unknown to the police, the likelihood that he will create new crime for personal benefit is so great (and this “loose cannon” approach to law enforcement disapproved of so much) that the courts will find the practice to violate the due process rights of anyone so ensnared. Put in even simpler terms, these cases discourage the police from turning a blind eye to entrapment by their agents who have every motivation to entrap. But it is entrapment which the court views as the heart of the matter. And entrapment is a defense which cannot be vicariously raised. Certainly, if entrapment were touted as the reason for discharge by Herndon in this case, this court would have no difficulty in finding that since the Cl did not deal with Hern-don, that the defense did not lie. Yet the only reason in this case or in the Hunter case that the motion to dismiss was granted as to the target”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 591 So. 2d 205 - Herndon v. State

2. “While the opinions in Hunter and Glosson expressed concern for the potential for perjury on the part of the state's informant-witness, we believe the main policy concern of Glosson, Williamson, and the other cases cited in Glosson to be that the contingency fee arrangement might "cause an informer to induce or persuade innocent persons to commit crimes which they had no previous intent or purpose to commit." Williamson, 311 F.2d at 444 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Heydel v. State

3. “cause an informer to induce or persuade innocent persons to commit crimes which they had no previous intent or purpose to commit.”

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