State v. Frye’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[1] The District Attorney’s Office of Harris County initiated and directly contacted [appellee] on two separate occasions behind the back of defense counsel and ob-tamed information material to the investigation, prosecution and trial of [appellee]. [2] The District Attorney’s Office initiated and engaged in the two lengthy conversations directly with [appellee], even though the District Attorney’s Office knew that [appellee] was represented by an attorney, [and] [b]oth conversations were without the consent of [appellee’s] counsel. [3] The District Attorney’s Office surreptitiously tape recorded the conversations it initiated with [appellee] and then lied to [appellee] when he inquired if the conversation was being recorded. [4] The conduct of the State was inappropriate, wrong, in violation of the State Bar Rules by which all attorney’s shall abide, and deprived [appellee] of due process of law, due course of law, the right to assistance of counsel, and the right to a fundamentally fair proceeding. [5] That suppression of the fruits of the State’s misconduct is an inadequate remedy because the information gained through the misconduct—the theory of the defense—is incapable of suppression. [6] That [any] suppression order prohibiting the State from benefitting from having improperly elicited the defensive theory from [appellee], ... would be fruitless for the reason, among others, that the tainted information is inexplicably entwined with the untainted, thereby rendering any”

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

2. “Our approach has thus been to identify and then neutralize the taint by tailoring relief appropriate in the circumstances to assure the defendant the effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial. The premise of our prior cases is that the constitutional infringement identified has had or threatens some adverse effect upon the effectiveness of counsel’s representation or has produced some other prejudice to the defense. Absent such impact on the criminal proceeding, however, there is no basis for imposing a remedy in that proceeding, which can go forward with full recognition of the defendant’s right to counsel and to a fair trial. More particularly, absent demonstrable prejudice, or substantial threat thereof, dismissal of the indictment is plainly inappropriate, even though the violation may have been deliberate.”

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

3. “[T]he nature of the information obtained through the abuse touches all aspects of [the defendant’s] defense. By explaining his side of the story ... he revealed what his testimony would be, what evidence he would attempt to present at trial, and, most significantly, he furnished the prosecution with enormous insight as to what his trial strategy would be. Unlike other ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ cases where it is a simple matter of precluding the admission of illegally obtained evidence, ... the information gleaned ... cannot be segregated from what untainted evidence might remain.”

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