State v. Dufour’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 51 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Escobedo■ the defendant requested the assistance of counsel and was refused. In this respect that case differs from the case at bar but in the course of its opinion the supreme court made it clear, we think, that the defendant in such circumstances must not only have been advised of his right to assistance of counsel when requested but he must also have been warned of his right to remain silent. ‘We hold, therefore/ the court said, ‘that where, as here, the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police custody, the police carry out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements, the suspect has requested and been denied an opportunity to' consult with his lawyer, and the police have not effectively warned him of his 'absolute constitutional right to remain silent, the accused -has been denied “the Assistance of Counsel” in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution as “made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment,” Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. [335], at 342, 83 S. Ct. [792], at 795 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 799 ] and that no statement elicited by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a criminal trial.’ “Our view of the thrust of Escobedo has recently been applied by the California supreme court in People v. Dorado, 40 Cal. Rptr. 264 , 394 P.2d 952 . In that case as in our case the defendant ”

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

2. ““When the voluntariness of a confession has been put in issue, the practice in this state requires that the trial justice hold a preliminary hearing on that question in the absence of the jury at which he should determine the coercion issue; that thereafter further testimony be presented to the jury; and that then the issue be submitted to the jury with proper instructions.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Andrews v. Langlois

3. ““In the trial of any action in any court of this state, no evidence shall be admissible where the same shall have been procured by, through or in consequence of any illegal search and seizure as prohibited in section 6 of article 1 of the constitution of the state of Rhode Island.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Spratt