State v. Wise’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 6 district · 56 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The test is whether an impartial jury could be obtained from among the citizens of the county or whether they are so aroused that they would not be qualified to sit as a jury to try the case. The evidence submitted, to be controlling^must be clear and convincing proof that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had before a jury of the county in which the indictment was found. State v. Overton, 85 N. J. L. 287 (E. & A. 1913); State v. Lynch, 103 N. J. L. 64 (E. & A. 1926); In re Kelsey, 127 N. J. L. 568 (Sup. Ct. 1942); State v. Collins, 2 N. J. 406 (1949) ; State v. Cooper, 10 N. J. 532 (1952).” 19 N. J., at p. 73-74.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Bey · State v. Ravenell

2. “We freely subscribe to the basic concepts of fairness as dedicated in Shepherd v. State of Florida, supra, [ 341 U.S. 50 , 71 S.Ct. 549 , 95 L.Ed. 740 ] holding newspapers, in the enjoyment of their constitutional right, may not deprive the accused of his right to a fair trial, and requiring the due process clause to be realistically and honestly interpreted and observed. But we find nothing in the proofs submitted in the instant case bringing it within the prohibited orbit. Our courts, too, in the same spirit of fundamental fairness, have decreed that motions for a change of venue are addressed to the sound discretion of the court. The discretion employed must be neither arbitrary, vague nor fanciful but must be guided by and in consonance with well established principles of law. In re Longo, 124 N.J.L. 176, 181 ( E. & A. 1940); La Bell v. Quasdorf, 116 N.J.L. 368, 372 ( Sup. Ct. 1936). The test is whether an impartial jury could be obtained from among the citizens of the county or whether they are so aroused that they would not be qualified to sit as a jury to try the case. The evidence submitted, to be controlling, must be clear and convincing proof that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had before a jury of the county in which the indictment was found.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 67 N.J. Super. 599 - State v. Williams

3. “Although there appear to be few reported cases involving the admissibility of confessions given while the defendant was under the influence of narcotics, we think it is apparent the same principles apply to this class of cases as have long been applied to confessions made while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. In the latter class of cases, both the state and federal courts are in unanimous agreement that the intoxication of the accused at the time he confesses affects only the weight of the confession as evidence against himself. So long as the accused is capable of making a narrative of past events or of stating his own participation in the crime, his statements are admissible against him. State v. Grear, 28 Minn. 426 , 10 N.W. 472 (Sup. Ct. 1881); White v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 625, 25 S.W. 784 (1894); Eiffe v. State, 226 Ind. 57 , 77 N.E.2d 750 (Ind. Sup. Ct. 1948); Bell v. United States, 60 App. D.C. 76 , 47 F.2d 438 , 74 A.L.R. 1098 (D.C. Cir.1931); Morton v. United States, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 329 , 147 F.2d 28, 31 (D.C. Cir.1945), certiorari denied 324 U.S. 875 , 65 S.Ct. 1015 , 89 L.ed. 1428 (1945); Bell v. United States, 60 App. D.C. 76 , 47 F.2d 438 , 74 A.L.R. 1102 ; 18 L.R.A.N.S., 789 ; Underhill, Criminal Evidence (2d ed. 1910), § 136.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 11 Ill. 2d 30 - The People v. Townsend