State v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “if there is evidence in the record that a defendant tailored his testimony, the prosecutor may cross-examine the defendant based on that evidence. However, at no time during cross-examination may the prosecutor reference the defendant's attendance at trial or his ability to hear the testimony of preceding witnesses.”); State v. Dobbins, 725 N.W.2d 492 (Minn.2006) (holding that state’s cross-examination questions about defendant’s presence at trial and ability to tailor testimony based on evidence presented was improper where state failed to present any evidence of”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 93 So. 3d 441 - Mendoza v. State

2. “afford no meaningful protection of a criminal defendant’s constitutional” rights, and prohibiting them allows the jury to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Walsh