People v. Outley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 5 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[w]hen an issue is raised concerning the validity of the postplea charge or there is a denial of any involvement in the underlying crime, the court must conduct an inquiry at which the defendant has an opportunity to show that the arrest is without foundation .... The inquiry must be of sufficient depth, however, so that the court can be satisfied—not of [the] defendant's guilt of the new criminal charge but of the existence of a legitimate basis for the arrest on that charge.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 404 F. Supp. 2d 472 - Janick v. Superintendent, Franklin Correctional Facility · State v. Stevens

2. “Defendants argue that when a defendant denies the postplea criminal conduct, the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to satisfy itself by a preponderance of the' evidence that the defendant has, in fact, committed the crime for which he was arrested.... [W]e decline to adopt [this standard].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 987 F. Supp. 151 - Spence v. Superintendent · State v. Stevens

3. “If ... proof that [the] defendant actually committed the postplea offense which led to the arrest is not necessary, what lesser showing does due process require in order for the court to impose the enhanced sentence? Obviously, the mere fact of the arrest, without more, is not enough. A no-arrest condition could certainly not be held to have been breached by arrests which are malicious or merely baseless .... When an issue is raised concerning the validity of the postplea charge or there is a denial of any involvement in the underlying crime, the court must conduct an inquiry at which the defendant has an opportunity to show that the arrest is without foundation .... The nature and extent of the inquiry ... is within the court's discretion .... The inquiry must be of sufficient depth, however, so that the court can be satisfied—not of [the] defendant's guilt of the new criminal charge but of the existence of a legitimate basis for the arrest on that charge.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Stevens