State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce his statement. Once arrested, defendant requested an attorney. The arresting officers took him to the detective office. While waiting in the office, defendant made a gratuitous statement implicating himself as the perpetrator of the attempted armed robbery. Defendant admits that the statement was not made in response to interrogation, but claims that if he had not been put in such a position, he would never had made the statement. Once an individual in custody expresses a desire for an attorney, at any stage in the process, further interrogation must cease until an attorney has been made available to him, unless the suspect initiates further communication, exchanges or conversation with the police. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); State v. Tilley, 99-0569 (La.07/06/00), 767 So.2d 6 , cert. denied, 532 U.S. 959 , 121 S.Ct. 1488 , 149 L.Ed.2d 375 (2001); State v. Koon, 96-1208 (La.05/20/97), 704 So.2d 756 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1001 , 118 S.Ct. 570 , 139 L.Ed.2d 410 (1997). Police are not obligated to ignore spontaneous and unsolicited statements by someone in custody, as long as those statements do not result from police-initiated custodial interrogation or questioning "reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response." State v. Tilley, supra ; State v. Ross, 95-1798 (La.03/08/96), 669 So.2d 384 , appeal after remand, 98-0283 (La.App. 4th Cir.09/08/9”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 945 So. 2d 170 - State v. Duplichan