State v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““So far as concerns the rule that the accused shall not be required to be a witness against himself, evidence extorted from him by intimidation stands upon the same footing as though it had been procured by force, or by any other unfair or illegal method. It has already been decided by this court that articles of which the prosecutor has obtained possession by unlawful means— for instance, by seizure without process—may be introduced in evidence over the objection of a defendant whose rights have been thus violated. (State v. Miller, 63 Kan. 62 .) The rule authorizes the use as' evidence, not only of articles taken by force, but also of those which the defendant has been coerced into delivering. The manner of their procurement, however reprehensible, will not prevent their use as evidence so long as the person against whom they are used has not been constrained by the court to produce them. A document that has been taken stealthily from the defendant’s desk, or forcibly from his pocket, or that he has surrendered under a threat of personal violence, may be used against him, because its wrongful procurement creates no estoppel, and the story it tells is its own and not that of the defendant. But if he produces it in obedience to an order of the court it is incompetent, because under such circumstances his act is performed in the capacity of a witness and to admit the fruits of it as evidence would be to make use of him as a witness against himself. . . . “True, in receiving as”

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

2. ““Documents or chattels obtained from the person’s control without the use of process against him as a witness are not in the scope of the privilege and may be used evidentially; for obviously the proof of their identity, or authenticity, or other circumstances affecting them, may and must be made by the testimony of other persons, without any employment of the accused’s oath or testimonial responsibility.””

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

3. ““That case, however, .... in later federal opinions, has in effect been pared down, and for practical purposes repudiated (in respect to the obiter statements, in the majority opinion, above noted).””

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