976 So. 2d 109 - State v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 100 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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A change of venue shall be granted when the applicant proves that by reason of prejudice existing in the public mind or because of undue influence, or that for any other reason, a fair and impartial trial cannot be obtained in the parish where the prosecution is pending. In deciding whether to grant a change of venue the court shall consider whether the prejudice, the influence, or the other reasons are such that they will affect the answers of jurors on the voir dire examination or the testimony of witnesses at the trial.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 127 So. 3d 1034 - State v. Segura · State v. Magee

2. “'The trial court is afforded great discretion when ruling on a motion to suppress, and its ruling will not be disturbed absent abuse of that discretion.' State v. Lee , 05-2098, p. 15 (La. 1/16/08), 976 So.2d 109 , 123.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson · 223 So. 3d 573 - State v. Cooper

3. “1 i?One of the theories courts use in addressing “fruit of the poisonous tree” issues is the inevitable discovery rule. The inevitable discovery doctrine “is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Because the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered.” Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 539 , 108 S.Ct. 2529, 2534 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988). A functional similarity exists between the independent source and inevitable discovery doctrines because both seek to avoid excluding evidence the police “would have obtained ... if no misconduct had taken place.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). The State therefore bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that “the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.... ” Id,.; State v. Vigne, 01-2940 (La.6/21/02), 820 So.2d 533, 539 . Application of the inevitable discovery doctrine thus “involves no speculative elements but focuses on demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or impeachment....” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. at 444 , 104 S.Ct. at 2509 n. 5; State v. Vigne, 820 So.2d at 539 . Integral to the proper application of the inevitable discovery doctrine is a finding that law enforcement would have inevitably secured the evidence by lawful means, not simply that they could h”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 213 So. 3d 477 - State v. Ables · State v. Thomas