State v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably State v. Bailey (1988), State v. Jones (1995)
3 federal appellate · 53 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Rose v. Clark · State v. Evans · Burch v. State of Louisiana · United States v. Gipson
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Where claimed newly discovered evidence would merely affect the CT Page 2470 credibility of a witness, it is not a ground for a new trial unless it is reasonably probable that on a new trial there would be a different result. . . . Only under most exceptional circumstances, even in a capitol case, could a witness' testimony be so important and influential that a court could, within the limits of a sound discretion, determine that new evidence merely impeaching the witness' credibility would probably produce a different result. . . . The rule restricting the right to a new trial when one is claimed on the basis of newly discovered evidence merely affecting the credibility of a witness is necessary because `scarcely has there been an important trial, with many witnesses, where [after the trial] diligent search would not have discovered evidence [to impeach the charter of] some witness on the trial.'"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In the routine case, a general unanimity instruction is sufficient to insure that the jury is unanimous on the factual basis for a conviction. However, this rule is inapplicable where there are factors in a case which create the potential that the jury will be confused. A more specific unanimity instruction is required "if (1) a jury is instructed that the commission of any one of several alternative actions would subject the defendant to criminal liability, (2) the actions are conceptually different and (3) the state has presented evidence on each of the alternatives.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hoskins v. State“The rules governing the granting of a new trial, whether by motion; Practice Book 903; or by petition; General Statutes 52-270 ; based on newly discovered evidence are the same in criminal or civil cases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.