Hamilton v. Nix’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 state also properly points out that the findings of the state court on factual questions are entitled to a presumption of correctness. Sumner v. Mata, 455 U.S. 591 [ 102 S.Ct. 1303 , 71 L.Ed.2d 480 ] ... (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). We are therefore bound by the state court’s finding that the police were aware of Maxine Hamilton’s identity and potential as a witness prior to the occurrence of any police misconduct since that finding is supported by the record. While accepting these facts as true, we are not, however, bound by the state court’s holding regarding the ultimate question of the constitutionality of admitting the evidence. Whether the evidence was attenuated, had an independent source, or would inevitably have been discovered are questions of federal law____ [citations omitted]””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 654 F. Supp. 515 - Harper v. Grammer

2. “were voluntary with respect to their testimony, the Elstad analysis does not obtain. The admissibility of Ann Morrison’s testimony and the physical evidence of the marijuana is also unaffected by Elstad. This evidence was obtained by Hamilton’s illegal interrogation resulting in Maxine's and Lincoln’s agreement to disclose the location of the marijuana and deliver it to the police. Not only was the evidence thus involuntarily obtained, but the underlying conduct infringed Hamilton’s sixth amendment right to counsel. Elstad did not displace the “fruits”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Hamilton v. Nix

3. “(1) the stated willingness of the witness to testify; (2) the role played by the illegally-seized evidence in gaining the witness' cooperation; (3) the proximity between the illegal behavior, the witness' decision to cooperate and the actual testimony at trial; and (4) the police motivation in conducting the search.”

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