160 Ind. App. 566 - Keyser v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 10 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[T]he desirability of ... informing the jury in a criminal case [of all circumstances affecting a witnesses credibility] must be balanced against any prejudice to the defendant generated by such evidence. Since a criminal defendant is the primary individual who could benefit from the bribing or absence of a witness who might testify against him, the inference is strong that he has procured these acts when evidence of them is introduced at his trial. No evidence or testimony was presented, or attempted to be presented, to advise the jury of whether or not the defendant was involved in the attempt. No connection between the defendant and the attempted bribe and threat was remotely shown. We think that in this latter instance such evidence becomes so prejudicial to a defendant that no jury could be expected to apply it solely to the question of the credibility of the witness before it and not to the substantial prejudice of the defendant. For this reason, the testimony quoted above amounted to an ‘evidential harpoon’ thrust into the defendant herein. Cf: White v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 64 , 272 N.E.2d 312 . It is apparent that the attempted removal of the resulting prejudice through an instruction to the jury was inadequate to expiate the effect of the testimony, when the testimony and the atmosphere created in the trial courtroom are examined in light of the criteria enunciated in White v. State, supra, as to the adequacy of jury admonishments in these situations. This is espe”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Adams v. State · Cox v. State

2. “[t]he manufacture, destruction, or suppression of evidence in defense of a criminal charge is in the nature of an admission of guilt and, though not conclusive, is to be given consideration as such by the jury.”

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