163 Wis. 2d 553 - State v. Sauceda’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “The focus of a preliminary hearing is to ascertain whether the facts and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom support the conclusion that the defendant probably committed a felony. A reviewing court plays a limited role in reviewing a magistrate's finding as to the existence of probable cause at a preliminary hearing. A reviewing court examines the evidence only sufficiently to discover whether there was any substantial ground for the exercise of judgment by the committing magistrate. Where a trial court reviews the magistrate's decision, the court must apply the same test for review as would the appellate court. Upon appellate review of the trial court's review, we owe no deference to the trial court's determination. ... [W]hile trial court review of the magistrate’s decision is first necessary, appellate review of the magistrate's decision is de novo. We need not give deference to the trial court's decision because the court was in no better position than we to assess the preliminary hearing evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 231 Wis. 2d 58 - State v. Johnson · 175 Wis. 2d 332 - State v. Lindberg

2. “a significantly different evidentiary fact that is not required or pertinent to proof on the [first] count[].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 171 Wis. 2d 711 - State v. Davis