State v. Mason’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘ “[I]t is therefore necessary that it shall appear to the court hearing the motion that [the new evidence] is probably true. The witness who is expected to testify must appear to the court to be credible. His credibility is to be determined by the judge hearing the motion. * * *” * * * * * * ‘The trial judge was in a much better position than we are to determine the weight to be given the affidavits and whether or not the testimony set forth in them would probably change the result in case of a new trial.’ The trial judge undoubtably [sic] felt that Collins’ testimony would not likely influence a jury on a retrial. The court below did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion. 105 Ariz. at 468 , 466 P.2d at 762 .”

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

2. ““Here, both defendant and Sanches testified to facts from which it can be inferred that the other was the sole perpetrator of the crime. The reasonable conclusion is that after a complete investigation the prosecution concluded that Sanches was not a party to the offense and hence the prosecution proceeded against the defendant alone. It was a case of simple alternatives; either Sanchez did it or defendant did it. The court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that an accomplice’s testimony needs to be corroborated since under the evidence neither could be the accomplice of the other.””

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

3. “The Court shall grant a new trial if any of the following grounds is established: (3) That new and material evidence, which if introduced at the trial would probably have changed the verdict or the finding of the court, is discovered which the defendant could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced upon the trial.”

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