State v. Skinner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When the article was brought to the attention of the trial judge, the jurors • were interrogated individually and two of them admitted having read part of the article. Both stated that as soon as they saw that the article referred to Skinner, they stopped reading it, and that it would not influence their decision. The court therefore denied a motion for mistrial and later denied a motion for a new trial. ‡ sjc j{c ‡ ‡ “The trial court stated that it believed the jurors’ statements that they would judge the case solely on the evidence, admonished the entire jury to do so, and ordered the trial to continue. “In the case of Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310 , 79 S.Ct. 1171 , 3 L. Ed. 1250 , the trial judge handled the matter in the same way, but the Supreme Court of the United States reversed and said: ‘The trial judge had a large discretion in ruling on the issue of prejudice resulting from the reading by jurors of news articles concerning the trial. Generalizations beyond that statement are not profitable, because each case must turn on its special facts. We have here the exposure of jurors to information of a character which the trial judge ruled was so prejudicial it could not be directly offered as evidence. The prejudice to the defendant is almost certain to be as great when that evidence reaches the jury through news accounts as when it is a part of the prosecution’s evidence. ... It may indeed be greater for it is then not tempered by protective procedures. • • • ”

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