562 So. 2d 1373 - Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

79 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he defendant's personal characteristics as well as his prior experience with the criminal justice system are factors to be considered in determining [the defendant's] susceptibility to police pressures.”

   25 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State · AM v. State

2. “[c]onfronting a defendant with evidence of guilt is not coercion on the part of the police and does not render a subsequent confession involuntary.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 574 So. 2d 894 - Ready v. State · 698 So. 2d 1150 - Ex Parte Gaddy

3. “'The issue is whether defendant's admissions made subsequent to the promise were the product of defendant's free will, or were coerced through the overbearing of defendant's free will, for while the courts are careful to exclude confessions obtained by promises, this does not require the exclusion of what are, in fact, voluntary statements. Under this rule, what renders the confession involuntary is that it was obtained as the result of the promise, i.e., the confession must have been induced by the promise, or made in reliance on such inducement, and, in order for the confession to be held involuntary, a causal connection must be shown between the alleged promise and defendant's decision to confess. " 'In other words, to be inadmissible under this rule, the confession must be so connected with the promise as to be the consequence of it. Conversely, a voluntary statement or confession made by defendant based upon his own conclusion that it would be in his best interest or work to his benefit does not render such statement or confession inadmissible.' " The key to our analysis of promises or inducements is to determine whether those promises or inducements actually caused the confession, not just whether the promises or inducements were made by the officer. However, in its opinion affirming Gaddy's conviction, the Court of Criminal Appeals states too broadly that a confession should not be excluded unless the evidence shows that the interrogator "bargained with”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 698 So. 2d 1100 - Gaddy v. State · 698 So. 2d 1150 - Ex Parte Gaddy