People v. Melanson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 16 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Here, the trial court determined that security measures were necessary to ensure the safety of everyone in the courtroom. In so ruling, the court specifically noted defendant's history of violent crimes, that until being extradited to Colorado for purposes of this trial defendant was incarcerated in Kentucky for a violent felony, and that the charge in the present case was first degree murder. "As a method of restraint, the People proposed the `stun' belt, a remotely activated device that is worn by a defendant around the waist and contains enough amperage to immobilize a person temporarily and cause muscular weakness for approximately 30-45 minutes. The device is not lethal and does not cause unconsciousness. "After hearing testimony regarding the operation of the stun belt and a test of the belt conducted on one of the officers, the trial court concluded that, because it would remain hidden and obviated the need for armed guards, the belt was the least obtrusive way of ensuring courtroom safety and of preserving the presumption of defendant's innocence and the appearance of his dignity. "Moreover, in an effort to eliminate possible prejudice or harm to the defendant, the court ordered ample precautionary measures including that defendant be provided with a sport coat large enough to cover the belt completely. "In our view, the trial court's decision that the physical restraint of defendant was necessary was not an abuse of its discretion. Although not all convicted felons ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 893 So. 2d 488 - Snyder v. State · Ronnie Hawkins v. Joan Comparet-Cassani

2. “the police possess some minimal level of objective suspicion (as distinguished from a mere hunch or intuition) that the person to be stopped is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Huynh

3. “participat[ing] fully and meaningfully in his trial, " but concluding that "the trial court . . . took appropriate steps here to assuage those concerns”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ronnie Hawkins v. Joan Comparet-Cassani