161 Wis. 2d 616 - State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
December 2007
most recently cited
14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Taylor v. Louisiana · United States v. Powell · Harris v. McRae · Horning v. District of Columbia · 153 Wis. 2d 493 - State v. Poellinger
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Inquiry into Validity of Verdict or Indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon the juror's or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Nor may the juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying be received.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“at sentencing. 7 Marhal argues that this finding is belied by the record. As the State points out, however, even if the trial court did consider at sentencing whether Marhal was culpable of first-degree intentional homicide although the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of the lesser-included offense, there was no error. The reasons are clear. 11 Juries have always had the inherent and fundamental power to return a verdict of not guilty irrespective of the evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[W]hoever knowingly and maliciously prevents or dissuades, or who attempts to so prevent or dissuade, another person who has been the victim of any crime or who is acting on behalf of the victim from doing any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor: (1) Making any report of the victimization to any peace officer or state, local or federal law enforcement or prosecuting agency, or to any judge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.