State v. S.M.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “I explain to them that he can go to a trial and that at a trial his brother would be called [by] the prosecutor to testify as to what he had said occurred, and that other people might be called to testify, you know, you sometimes call the police officers, the person that the information that was disclosed to, and that he had the right to have people testify, too, and he can testify and tell the judge that — his side of the story, if he — if he didn't believe that he did what his brother had accused of him, then he could tell the judge his side of the story and the judge would listen to the witnesses and listen to both sides and then decide whether or not he believed one side more than he believed the other side. And then the judge would make his decision.”

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

2. “Q: Okay. Did you explain to him the burden of proof, that he did not have to testify at all and could still be acquitted? A: I told him that — I explained to him that he could testify to the Court as to what his position was and what occurred that his brother disclosed and his brother would testify and the judge would made a decision as to which of the parties the judge believed was telling — more likely telling the truth. Q: But did you tell him that he didn't have to testify at all and that his refusal to testify could not be held against him in any way? A: I told him he didn't have to testify; I don't believe I — I don't know if I told him his refusal would not be held against him.”

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

3. “as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. This was not a mere technical violation: the legal assistant's advice was both deficient and prejudicial. She misinformed S.M. as to the burden of proof, clearly describing a preponderance of the evidence standard instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; she did not inform S.M. that a refusal to testify could not be held against him; she did not read the plea form to S.M. or, apparently, make sure that he read it himself, stating only that he”

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