State v. Stuart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is obvious that the extraneous statements brought before the jury by Gearhart as matters within his personal knowledge were prejudicial in character and naturally would have an effect upon the minds of the jury. It was the duty of the jury to make its findings upon evidence regularly introduced upon the trial and not upon the personal knowledge of jurors. A statement of fact by a juror to his fellow jurors of his personal knowledge of facts involved in the case but not in the evidence, is misconduct. Of course not every act of misconduct is ground for granting a new trial. If it be trivial, or not such as to influence the jury, the misconduct will not vitiate a verdict. If facts outside of the evidence are brought before the jury as of the personal knowledge of a juror and they are likely to have influenced the mind of other jurors, the verdict should be set aside. State v. McCormick, 57 Kan. 440 , 46 Pac. 777 ; State v. Burton, 65 Kan. 704 , 70 Pac. 640 ; State v. Lowe, 67 Kan. 183 , 72 Pac. 524 ; State v. Duncan, 70 Kan. 883 , 78 Pac. 427 .)” (p. 589.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Boller