State v. Sainz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"... When the state's participation in the criminal enterprise reaches the point where it can be said that except for the conduct of the state a crime would probably not have been committed or because the conduct is such that it is likely to induce those to commit a crime who would normally avoid crime, or, if the conduct is such that if allowed to continue would shake the public's confidence in the fair and honorable administration of justice, this then becomes entrapment as a matter of law." [Citations omitted]”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Vallejos · State v. Fiechter

2. “"`... as the part played by the state increases, the importance of the defendant's predisposition and intent decreases, until at some point entrapment as a matter of law is reached... .'" 84 N.M. at 259 , 501 P.2d at 1249 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Fiechter · State v. Jackson

3. ““It is fundamental that the basic thought behind the doctrine of entrapment is that officers of the law should not incite crime merely to punish the perpetrator. The question of accused’s predisposition tends to a subjective standard which varies from case to case and person to person. The issue is better framed in ‘ . ■ . the objective terms of whether persons at large who would not otherwise have done so would have been encouraged by the government’s actions to engage in crime. The focus [should be] on the activities of the government and their relation to the reasonable man.’ Working Papers of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Comment on Entrapment, July 1970, Vol. I, p. 303. Otherwise the doctrine of entrapment will remain as ‘. . . gropingly [expressing] the feeling of outrage at conduct of law enforcers . . . but without the formulated basis in reason that it is the first duty of courts to construct. . . . ’ Sherman v. United States, supra; Comment, The Constitutional Status of the Entrapment Defense, 74 Yale L.Rev. 942 (1965).””

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