State v. Duk Won Lee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A. Alleged Violation Of Right To Confrontation Whether the prosecution has made an adequate showing of the “unavailability” of a witness—for the purpose of satisfying the confrontation clauses of the United States and Hawaii Constitutions—is, at the first level of analysis, a question of fact for the trial court to decide, involving a determination of the nature of the prosecution’s “good faith” efforts to secure the witness’s presence at trial. Findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. State v. Ganal, 81 Hawai'i 358, 368 , 917 P.2d 370, 380 (1996); Tachibana v. State, 79 Hawai'i 226, 231 , 900 P.2d 1293, 1298 (1995); State v. Furutani, 76 Hawai'i 172, 179 , 873 P.2d 51, 58 (1994). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Ganal, 81 Hawai'i at 368 , 917 P.2d at 380 ; Tachibana, 79 Hawai'i at 231 , 900 P.2d at 1298 ; Furutani, 76 Hawai'i at 179 , 873 P.2d at 58 . At the second level of analysis, we ask whether the facts as found amount to a legally adequate good faith effort to confront the defendant with his accusers. This is a question of federal and/or state constitutional law, and we answer it by exercising our own “ Independent constitutional judgment [based] on the facts of the case.’ ” Crosby v. State Dep’t of Budget & Fin., 76 Hawai'i 332, 341 , 876 P.2d 1300, 1309 (1994) (quoting Connick v. Myers, ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Klinge · State v. Sua

2. “1. The discussions between Soto and her attorney, Cooper, which HPD informant Lau listened in on and was subsequently debriefed by Detective Brown about, fell under the attorney-client privilege, and were not subject to revelation to the police or prosecution; 2. Soto’s rights to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated when confidential informant Lau, acting under specific instructions from HPD, intruded into the defense camp by attending the March 24 and March 27, 1992 hearings on Soto’s motion to suppress evidence, deliberately listening in on Soto’s conversations with her attorney, Cooper, thereby gaining information on the defense’s legal strategy, and then reporting that information to HPD during a debriefing; 3. By hanging close to Cooper, Soto and Hughes as they walked down the hallway discussing the effect of the denial on Soto’s case and by specifically positioning himself so that he could hear discussions between Soto and her attorney, Lau intruded into the confidential attorney-client communications, thereby violating Soto’s Sixth Amendment rights; 4. Lau’s debriefing of the occurrences at the hearings by Brown further heightened the intrusion and the violation of Soto’s Sixth Amendment rights; 5. Soto is further prejudiced by Lau’s and Brown’s interpretations that Soto’s statement about “working harder” meant either stepping up drug sales or efforts to have the witness killed, [9] which testimony co”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Soto

3. “Pursuant to Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 52(b), “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” This court’s power to deal with plain error “is one to be exercised with caution because the plain error rule represents a departure from a presupposition of the adversary system—that a party must look to his or her counsel for protection and bear the cost of counsel’s mistakes.” Raines v. State, 79 Hawai'i 219, 226 , 900 P.2d 1286, 1293 (1995) (quoting State v. Kupau, 76 Hawai'i 387, 393 , 879 P.2d 492, 498 (1994)); State v. Fox, 70 Haw. 46, 56 , 760 P.2d 670, 675-76 (1988). “[T]he decision to take notice of plain error must turn on the facts of the particular ease to correct errors that ‘seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Fox, 70 Haw. at 56 , 760 P.2d at 676 (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 , 56 S.Ct. 391, 392 , 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Loa