Elson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 53 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] private citizen may not use force to resist a peaceful search by one who he knows or has good reason to believe is an authorized police officer performing his duties, regardless of whether the search is ultimately determined to be illegal.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gardiner · Sosa v. State

2. “We recognize that some courts have held that a defendant's refusal to provide "non-testimonial" evidence (fingerprints, writing sample, breath sample ) is admissible at trial. The general rationale adopted by these cases is that the defendant has no fifth amendment right to refuse to cooperate or to submit to the tests, thus the admission of the defendant's refusal does not infringe on the privilege against compelled self-incrimination. The defendant's refusal to consent is seen not as a testimonial communication but rather as conduct which is circumstantial evidence of his consciousness of guilt. Whatever the merits of this line of reasoning, we think it is inapplicable to cases where the defendant refuses to consent to a search which he mistakenly believes to be illegal. It is settled that a defendant has no federal constitutional right to refuse to provide evidence of his physical traits. The admission of the defendant's refusal in one case will not inhibit his future assertion of his fifth amendment rights since by definition the defendant will never have the right to refuse to provide this evidence. In contrast, the admission of an individual's refusal to consent to a legal search in one case may inhibit individuals from exercising the right to refuse consent to some future illegal search. We therefore hold that evidence of a refusal to consent to a search is inadmissible regardless of the legality of the search.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Burnett v. Municipality of Anchorage

3. “The conduct or demeanor of an accused at the time of arrest, which indicates a consciousness of guilt, has been held to be admissible as an implied admission. People v. Cramer [ 67 Cal.2d 127 , 60 Cal.Rptr. 230 ], 429 P.2d 582 (Cal.1967); State v. Lee [ 201 Kan. 177 ], 440 P.2d 562 (Kan.1968); Commonwealth v. Montecalvo [ 367 Mass. 46 ], 323 N.E.2d 888 (Mass.1975). Examples of these admissions by conduct include resisting arrest, attempting to escape, assuming a disguise or alias and fleeing from the scene of the crime. [C.] McCormick, Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 271, at 655 (2d ed. 1972). We have expressed serious doubt, however, as to the relevancy of evidence of flight to the issue of guilt. See Bargas v. State, 489 P.2d at 133 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Dyer v. State