State v. Paschall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The deputy prosecutor, on the hearing of the motion for new trial, stated to the trial court that it was his intention to go as far as he could under the holding in the Litzenberger case. But he went farther, as is shown by the record. We can see no difference in pointing at the appellant, under such circumstances, and in mentioning his name. The gesture may be as eloquent as the spoken word—and as effective. It was as direct and positive a reference to appellant’s failure to testify as if his name had been spoken. We cannot uphold the deputy prosecutor’s conduct without going a step beyond the doctrine announced in the Litzenberger case. This, under the authorities, we are not warranted in doing. See: State v. Pavelich, supra [ 150 Wash. 411 , 273 Pac. 182 ]; Morrison v. United States, 6 Fed. (2d) 809; People v. Dondhoe, 279 Ill. 411 , 117 N. E. 105 ; Miller v. Commonwealth, 182 Ky. 438 , 206 S. W. 630 .””

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