State v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “apprehended under coercive circumstances, is subjected to lengthy custodial interrogation before being given a Miranda warning, does not have the benefit of a significant pause in the interrogation after the Miranda warning is given, and essentially repeats the same inculpatory statements after the Miranda warning as before.” 677 N.W.2d 380, 392 (Minn.2004). 6 . See also State v. Thaggard, 527 N.W.2d 804, 807-12 (Minn.1995) (disapproving of police officer’s promise that defendant would probably be given drug treatment if he confessed”

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

2. “generally 'left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.' " State v. Hager , 325 N.W.2d 43 , 44 (Minn. 1982) (quoting State v. Johnson , 307 Minn. 501 , 239 N.W.2d 239 , 242 (1976) ). There is no "rigid formulation of what showing is necessary in order for a particular item of evidence to be admissible”

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

3. “requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”

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