State v. Tucker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

65 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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Even given the guards’ knowledge of Tucker’s past mental health counseling, and given their awareness of his uneasiness over seeing coverage of Brock’s trial on television, their interaction with him has all the earmarks of casual conversation. The officers were simply looking out for Tucker’s well-being. They engaged him in casual conversation, as they had in the past when they observed he was anxious or nervous, and were attempting to calm him. Tucker had never confessed any details in the past to them of his participation in the events at Herring’s home, and there was no reason for them to anticipate that he would confess this time. Deputy Garwood testified at the suppression hearing that he was a Logan County deputy, and that he really did not know the details of Tucker’s ease, because Tucker was a suspect in Shelby County and was to be tried in Shelby County. Moreover, the musings of Deputy Garwood that “when this is all said and’ done, I’d like to hear about what happened that day” were not “reasonably likely to eheit an incriminating response.” This statement by the corrections officer was similar to the officers’ statements at issue in Innis that were characterized by the United States Supreme Court as “offhand remarks.” 446 U.S. at 303 , 100 S.Ct. at 1691 , 64 L.Ed.2d at 309 . “[T]he police surely cannot be held accountable for the unforeseeable results of their words or actions.” Id., 446 U.S. at 301-302 , 100 S.Ct. at 1690 , 64 L.Ed.2d at 308 . We conclude that Tuc”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tucker v. Warden, Ohio State Penitentiary · State v. Tolliver, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2004)

2. “[T]o determine whether a suspect has been `interrogated,' the heart of the inquiry focuses on police coercion, and whether the suspect has been compelled to speak by that coercion.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lesure, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2004) · State v. Smiley, 23815 (4-23-2008)

3. “After his apprehension in Kentucky, Tucker was brought to the Logan County Jail on April 12, 1994, and held there while awaiting trial. Tucker was in a “day room” with several other inmates at the jail on December 4, 1994, when corrections officers guarding him noticed that he was nervous and “wasn’t himself.” Tucker had been watching television news coverage of Brock’s separate trial. The guards, Logan County Deputy Sheriff Larry Garwood and Jail Corporal Phil Bailey, also with the Logan County Sheriffs Department, decided to remove Tucker from the day room and to take him to another room in the jail, away from other prisoners. The guards gave him a cigarette and a soft drink, in an effort to calm him down. Tucker had undergone some mental health counseling while being detained, and the guards asked him if he wanted them to contact a mental health professional to come to the jail. Tucker told them that he did not want a counselor. Tucker began talking about Brock’s trial to the guards, telling them he wished “this would just get over” so he could “start [his] time.” He had in the past told the guards that it helped him to talk about it and to get it off his chest because it helped him sleep. Tucker told the guards he was going to plead guilty when he was tried (unless Brock got the death penalty, because he wouldn’t plead guilty then). At this point, one of the guards remarked, “when this is all said and done, I’d like to hear about what happened that day.” Tucker stated tha”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 175 F. Supp. 2d 999 - Tucker v. WARDEN, OHIO STATE PENITENTIARY