59 Wis. 2d 35 - State v. Driver’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The defendant further moves the court, III: “SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE. “A. THE COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SECURED IN VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. “This particular portion of the defendant’s motion has to do with the clothing the defendant put on immediately after his arrest. This clothing was subsequently received into evidence. It had been tested and revealed blood stains of the type of the decedent, Allean Mosley, which was different than the blood type of the defendant. “A motion to suppress this evidence was heard before this court in July of 1973. The officers testifying at that time indicated that they either told or request ed the defendant to put on the same clothes he had on the previous night, namely, April 5th, 1972. The defendant, however, testified as follows at that particular hearing: “ ‘QUESTION: When you were told to get dressed did you retrieve the clothes or were they given to you? “‘ANSWER: I walked into the bedroom and immediately was handed clothing to put on. “ ‘QUESTION: And prior to be given those clothes was it inspected or shaken down in any way? “ ‘ANSWER: When Officer Enk gave me the clothes he grabbed some clothing and immediately began feeling it, I assumed, to see if there were any weapons or anything in those clothes. “ ‘QUESTION: And were you told at that time, Mr. Davis, or any time while you were in the bedroom, to put on the clothes you were wearing the night before? “ ‘”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 453 F. Supp. 1316 - Davis v. Israel

2. ““Since the privilege [against self-incrimination] was not involved in defendant’s choice to submit to the test, there is no merit to his argument that counsel was necessary in order to advise him in making that choice.” (at 42-3)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 95 Wis. 2d 191 - State v. Neitzel