State v. Timothy Eugene Wright’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. “[E]liciting testimony from a witness regarding a defendant's refusal to consent to a search, when used for the purpose of inferring guilt, is prosecutorial misconduct and may be fundamental error.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. BOSSE v. STATE · BOSSE v. STATE

2. ““[T]he Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the use of physical restraints visible to the jury absent a trial court determination, in the exercise of its discretion, that they are justified by a state interest specific to a particular trial.” Deck [v. Missouri], 544 U.S. [622,] 629, [ 125 S.Ct. 2007, 2012 , 161 L.Ed.2d 953, 963 (2005)]; see also Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 505 [ 96 S.Ct. 1691, 1693-94 , 48 L.Ed.2d 126, 131 ] (1976) (recognizing shackles should only be used when necessary to control a defendant); Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343-44 [ 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1060-61 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353, 358-60 ] (1970) (holding a defendant may be restrained to maintain the decorum in a courtroom). A criminal defendant may be restrained during trial only in the “presence of a special need.” Deck, 544 U.S. at 626 [ 125 S.Ct. at 2010 , 161 L.Ed.2d at 960 ]. Interpreting this, the Idaho Supreme Court held the Due Process Clauses of both the United States and Idaho Constitutions prohibit visibly restraining a criminal defendant at trial unless “overriding concerns for safety or judicial decorum predominate.” [State v.] Crawford, 99 Idaho [87,] 96, 577 P.2d [1135,] 1144 [ (1978) ]. Therefore, any use of restraints must be based upon a finding that they are necessary. Id. at 98, 577 P.2d at 1146; State v. Hyde, 127 Idaho 140, 147 , 898 P.2d 71, 78 (Ct.App.1995). Using restraints on a defendant during trial is reversible error if the trial judge fails to make a finding that the rest”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Doe (13-14)

3. “A finding that restraints are necessary may be based on both formally offered evidence admitted at trial and knowledge gained from law enforcement officers or official records. State v. Knutson, 121 Idaho 101, 105 , 822 P.2d 998, 1002 (Ct.App. 1991). “Although the sheriff has some initial responsibility for determining whether an accused should be handcuffed during a jury trial, the trial judge must, in fulfilling his duty to preside over the trial, decide the question for himself.” Moen, 94 Idaho at 479 , 491 P.2d at 860 . The information relied upon to support restraining a defendant should be shown on the record, outside the presence of the jury, and “the defendant should be afforded reasonable opportunity to meet that information.” Id. at 480 , 491 P.2d at 861 . Providing such a record allows an appellate court to determine whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion. Id. When determining whether physically restraining a defendant is necessary, it is preferred that a hearing is conducted, with sworn testimony and the defendant present, except in cases where the trial process is disrupted in the court’s presence. Id. at 479-80 , 491 P.2d at 860-61 ; see also Crawford, 99 Idaho at 98, 577 P.2d at 1146 (holding the use of restraints after an ex parte hearing with the State violated the defendant’s due process rights to a fair trial). However, where a trial court fails to hold a hearing, or does not specifically state the reasons for placing a defendant in restr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Doe (13-14)