933 So. 2d 910 - Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]n reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, [an appellate court] must determine whether the trial court's findings, considering the totality of the circumstances, are supported by substantial credible evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Trevontae Johnson v. State of Mississippi · 999 So. 2d 360 - Johnson v. State

2. “Q: Did you advise him of his rights against self incrimination; that is, what everybody knows as the [Miranda ] warnings? A: Yes, I did. Q: Did you use a form? A: Yes. Q: Do you have that form with you? A: Yes, I do. Q: Would you explain about that form, please? A: This is our criminal investigation division, our [Miranda ] [r]ights form. We read it to everybody that we talk to. [[Image here]] Q: And did you in fact read that [Mi randa] warning to the Defendant? A: Yes, I did. Q: And did you ask him if he understood those rights? A: Yes, I did. Q: And what was his response? A: Yeah. On one on part of it and on the waiver of rights, yes, sir. Q: And what is the waiver of rights? What does that mean? A: Basically it’s that he’s willing to make a statement and answer questions, and that’s exactly what it says on the waiver. [[Image here]] Q: After you advised the Defendant and he agreed to waive his rights, did you talk to him? A: Yes, I did. Q: And did he agree freely and voluntarily without any promise or any threat to give you a statement? A: Yes.”

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

3. “[Wjhether the circumstances were coercive, occurred while in the custody of law enforcement or occurred in the course of a station house investigation. The court must also look to the individual’s maturity, impressionability, experience and education. Further, the court should consider whether the person was excited, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or mentally incompetent. If the consent occurred while the defendant was being generally cooperative, the consent is more likely to be voluntary ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 173 So. 3d 907 - Ryan Nicholas O'Donnell v. State of Mississippi