9 Haw. App. 447 - State v. Liulama’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “HPD form 81 [is] used by police officers to inform individuals being subjected to a custo dial interrogation that they have a constitutional right to refuse to answer any questions put to them, that they are entitled to have an attorney present during the interrogation, and that an attorney will be appointed by the court if they cannot afford one. The form also informs those individuals that whatever they say can be used against them in further proceedings.”

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

2. “Given the adversarial nature of their relationship, for the State's representatives to communicate adequately that information to an indicted defendant would be difficult, nigh impossible. As a general rule, after an indictment and before arraignment, prosecutors or their representatives should not initiate a conversation with defendants without the consent of defense counsel.”

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

3. “The Sanchez court observed that once an indictment has been returned, the relationship between the state and the defendant becomes adversarial. The state has established that it has a prima facie case and is committed to prosecution. Interrogation of the accused at this point can only be for the purpose of buttressing the state's case.”

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