State v. Chambers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This court has previously held that extraneous evidence prejudicial to the defendant which reaches the jury by way of the news media may be cause for reversal under the proper circumstances. Babb v. State, 18 Ariz. 505 , 163 P. 259 . See also, Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 79 S.Ct. 1171 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1250 . The determination, however, of whether the jury’s exposure to newspaper accounts while the trial is in progress is ground for a new trial or mistrial rests to a large degree in the sound discretion of the trial court. Marshall v. United States, supra; United States v. Howell, 3 Cir., 240 F.2d 149 ; State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , 139 N.W.2d 490 ; People v. Gambino, 12 Ill.2d 29 , 145 N.E.2d 42 ; State v. McLaughlin, 250 Iowa 435 , 94 N.W.2d 303 ; Thistle v. People, 119 Colo. 1 , 199 P.2d 642 ; State v. Cunningham, 173 Or. 25 , 144 P.2d 303 . * * *” State v. Chambers, 102 Ariz. 234, 236 , 428 P.2d 91, 93 (1967).”

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