172 Wis. 2d 491 - State v. Marhal’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a sentencing court may consider conduct for which the defendant has been acquitted.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Arredondo · 212 Wis. 2d 169 - State v. Damaske

2. “(2) Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict ..., 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 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.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 388 Wis. 2d 255 - State v. Mahajni · 183 Wis. 2d 143 - Johnson v. Agoncillo

3. “Information upon which a trial court bases a sentencing-decision, as opposed to a finding of guilt, need not, of course, be established beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Arredondo · State v. Salas