819 So. 2d 91 - Richardson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`The fundamental requirements for voluntariness of confessions are that the court must conclude, in order to find a defendant's confession voluntary, that he made an independent and informed choice of his own free will, that he possessed the capacity to do so, and that his will was not overborne by pressures and circumstances swirling around him. Jurek v. Estelle , 623 F.2d 929 (5th Cir. 1980) (en banc), cert. denied , 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981); Lewis v. State [, 535 So.2d 228 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988)]. The test is whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement officials have *Page 231 overborne the will of the accused. Haynes v. Washington , 373 U.S. 503 , 83 S.Ct. 1336 , 10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963); Townsend v. Sain , 372 U.S. 293 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963); Culombe v. Connecticut , 367 U.S. 568 , 81 S.Ct. 1860 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961). The factual inquiry centers on the conduct of the law enforcement officials in creating pressure and the suspect's capacity to resist that pressure. Mincey v. Arizona , 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); Martin v. Wainwright , 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir. 1985); Jurek v. Estelle . The defendant's personal characteristics as well as his prior experience with the criminal justice system are factors to be considered in determining his susceptibility to police pressures. Fikes v. Alabama , 352 U.S. 191 , 77 S.Ct. 281 , 1 L.Ed.2d 246 (1957); Stein v. New York , 346 U.S. 156 , 73”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 849 So. 2d 223 - Baird v. State · 852 So. 2d 839 - Hart v. State

2. “"`The standard of review when there is conflicting evidence at a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence of a confession is whether the trial court's decision was "manifestly contrary to the great weight of the evidence." Ex parte Matthews , 601 So.2d 52 , 54-55 (Ala.), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1206 , 112 S.Ct. 2996 , 120 L.Ed.2d 872 (1992). We will not disturb the trial court's decision on the voluntariness of a confession unless it is clearly erroneous. Ex parte Youngblood , 656 So.2d 390 , 392 (Ala. 1995).'"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Marlowe v. State · 849 So. 2d 223 - Baird v. State