State v. MacUmber’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 36 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““An expert is one whose opinions depend upon special knowledge with which he can assist the jury. Board of Regents v. Cannon [ 86 Ariz. 176 , 342 P.2d 207 (1959)]. He need not be a professional, but may be a lay person who has special knowledge superior to men in general through actual experience or careful study. Board of Regents v. Cannon, supra. He need not have the highest degree of skill or knowledge, but that lack of degree goes to the weight of his testimony before the trier of fact and not to admissibility. City of Phoenix v. Brown, 88 Ariz. 60 , 352 P.2d 754 (1960); Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, § 23. State v. Macumber, 112 Ariz. 569, 570 , 544 P.2d 1084, 1085 (1976).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lajeunesse · Handley v. State

2. “At trial, it was alleged that another individual had confessed to the crime for which Macumber was being tried. This confession had been made to two attorneys who were willing to testify at the trial of the appellant, the person said to have confessed having died. The court refused the evidence finding, sua sponte, that it was privileged. ARS § 13-1802 provides that an attorney shall not be examined as to any communication made to him by his client without the consent of his client. The privilege is that of the client and only he or someone authorized by law to do so on his behalf may claim it. * * * However, in the absence of the privileged individual, the privilege may be asserted by another including the trial court itself. * * The privilege does not terminate with death. * * * It has been commonly suspended only in cases where the communication would be logically thought to further the interests of the deceased such as a will, * * ‘ or where a person normally able by statute to invoke the privilege for another does so to exclude evidence in a prosecution for a crime against that person. The attorney-client privilege is statutory and an attorney is not allowed to waive the privilege under the circumstances of this case. The legislature has presumably weighed the possibility of hampering justice in originally providing for the privilege.”

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

3. ““An expert is one whose opinions depend upon special knowledge with which he can assist the jury. [Citation.] He need not be a professional, but may be a lay person who has special knowledge superi- or to men in general through actual experience or careful study. [Citation!] He need not have the highest degree of skill or knowledge, but that lack of degree goes to the weight of his testimony before the trier of fact and not to admissibility. [Citations.] * * * * * * “A person need not be expert in a detailed aspect of a specialized area of knowledge; it is sufficient if he can be qualified as expert in that specialty. * * * »”

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