Self v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

80 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. “(1) whether Miranda warnings were given; (2) the temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession; (3) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (4) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Little v. State · Barber v. State

2. ““Justice Powell, concurring in Brown , referred to the factors as ‘the general factors.’ (Emphasis added.) Justice Rehnquist, dissenting in Dunaway, referred to the factors as the ‘several factors.’ And in its opinions the Supreme Court has never assigned equal weight to each of the factors to be considered in determining whether inculpa-tory statements were sufficiently a product of free will to be admissible under the Fourth Amendment. Given the deterrent purposes of the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment and of Article 38.23, V.A.C.C.P., the fourth factor, the purpose and flagrancy of the police conduct, may be the most important factor of the four which the Court has never said were exclusive. “Further, it has been said: “ ‘The question whether a confession is the product of a free will under Wong Sun must be answered on the facts of each case. No single fact is dispositive.’ Brown, 422 U.S. at 603 , 95 S.Ct. at 2261 . ‘The “question” of attenuation inevitably is largely a matter of “degree” and thus application of the test is “dependent upon the particular facts of each case.” ’ 3 La Fane, Searches and Seizures, § 11.4(a), p. 616 (1978). See also Comment, 31 U.Miami L.Rev. 615, 620 (1977).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Barber v. State · Juarez v. State

3. “[E]ven if the statements in this case were found to be voluntary under the Fifth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment issue remains. In order for the causal chain, between the illegal arrest and the statements made subsequent thereto, to be broken [,] Wong Sun requires not merely that the statement meet the Fifth Amendment standard of voluntariness but that it be ‘sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint’.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. State · Maixner v. State