State v. Levy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Most appropriate at this point is a statement set forth in Viereck v. United States, 318 U.S. 236, 248 , 63 S.Ct. 561, 566 , 87 L.Ed. 734 , 741: “‘The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor — indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.” ’ “More than ever before those engaged in the prosecution of criminal cases would do well to heed the foregoing word of caution, heretofore voiced by this court in State v. Tolson, 248 Iowa 733, 734-735 , 82 N.W.2d 105 ; State v. Poston, 199 Iowa 1073, 1075 , 203 N.W. 257 ; and State v. Van Hoozer, 192 Iowa 818, 822 , 185 N.W. 588 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Vickroy · State v. Hastings

2. ““Section 622.7, Code, 1966, provides in part: “Husband or wife as witness. Neither the husband nor wife shall in any case be a witness against the other, except: [exceptions not pertinent here]. “There is no reason to believe the attorney prosecuting the case at bar was not fully aware of this statute, and if he knew not of it when trial commenced, defense counsel and trial court promptly alerted him to its existence. “Despite that fact he repetitiously sought to impress upon the minds of the jurors, defendant’s wife could reveal vital information if allowed to do so. This was aggravated by continuous reference to the matter in spite of constant objections by defense counsel and futile admonitions by trial court to desist, even to the point of cautioning a mistrial would be declared if the prosecutor continued in his efforts to abuse the statutory husband-wife privilege. Stated otherwise, the county attorney’s assistant repeatedly endeavored by insinuations, inferences and innuendoes, both in presentation of evidence and arguments, to indelibly impress upon the minds of the jurors defendant was designedly suppressing his wife’s testimony which, if given, would be damaging to him.””

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

3. “A cause will not necessarily be reversed because of alleged misconduct of counsel. On the contrary, appellate courts are strongly inclined against setting aside convictions because of misconduct of counsel. * * * Misconduct of counsel is generally regarded as harmless and not cause for reversal * * * where it has not resulted in depriving accused of a fair trial, or in a miscarriage of justice * * *.”

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