Parkhurst v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 50 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We believe that it is consistent with Jerskey and Clenin to read the term `comment' as implying more than a reference to the accused's silence. Implicit in the term is a reaction to that which is being mentioned which would present the possibility of the State exploiting the silence. Here the officer's statements were: `Some questions were answered, some weren't' and `neither subject said anything.' Those statements constituted the totality of any reference to silence. These isolated statements were never at any time intended to be used to the prosecutor's advantage by the prosecution. Further, no later reference was made to any of them. There is nothing derogatory in those words; there is no expression of the police officer's attitude towards such silence. They are not so much statements concerning appellants' silence as they are testimony about behavior. Moreover, the silence referred to was of a passive nature; there was no affirmative exercise of the right to silence. Without more there is no reason to infer that the jury read the appellants' silence as an admission of guilt. It is reasonable to conclude that the jury took the appellants' unresponsiveness within the complete context of the stop as an indication that the appellants did not hear the question, the officer asked the question too fast, or they were frightened or confused — a state shared by most people upon being stopped by the police even though guiltless. There is nothing in these circumstances to indicate ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brewster v. State · State v. Lewis

2. “A defendant may challenge a search as being unconstitutional only if he can demonstrate that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property searched. The defendant must show "both an actual subjective expectation of privacy and a reasonable expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize." There are four factors that courts consider to determine whether an individual possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property searched: (1) the precautions taken in order to maintain one's privacy; (2) the likely intent of the drafters of the United States and Wyoming Constitutions; (8) the property rights a claimant possesses in the invaded area; (4) the legitimacy of the individual's possession of or presence in the property which was searched or seized.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beadles v. State · Dettloff v. State

3. “"`Q After that, what did you do? "`A I continued to talk to the subjects, tried to ascertain or to make certain where they had been, how they had gotten there, what roads they had travelled, whether they had passed through Glenrock or not. Some questions were answered, some weren't. * * * * * * "`Q What did the two of you do after the parts you were testifying to? "`A When I returned from the vehicle, the second time, from my vehicle, Officer Dekmar advised that he had asked for consent to search. He advised me this in a loud enough tone of voise [sic] that both subjects could hear him at the front of the vehicle. We were standing about even with the front door, and neither subject said anything. ' (Emphasis added.)" 628 P.2d at 1380 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brewster v. State · State v. Lewis