Wiggins v. State’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. ““Some courts have found that expert testimony on the effects of alcohol is not necessary because it concerns an issue within the common knowledge of a juror. As the Washington Court of Appeals stated in State v. Thomas, 123 Wash. App. 771 , 98 P.3d 1258 (2004): “ ‘A voluntary intoxication defense allows the jury to consider “evidence of intoxication” to determine whether the defendant acted with the requisite intent. But unlike diminished capacity, it is not necessary to present expert testimony to support an involuntary intoxication defense. The effects of alcohol are commonly known and jurors can draw reasonable inferences from testimony about ' alcohol use. State v. Kruger, 116 Wash.App. 685, 692-93 , 67 P.3d 1147 , rev. denied 150 Wash.2d 1024 , 81 P.3d 120 (2003); State v. Smissaert, 41 Wash.App. 813, 815 , 706 P.2d 647 (1985).’ “123 Wash.App. at 781-82, 98 P.3d at 1263 . See also State v. Frank, 364 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Minn.1985) (‘Most jurors have some experience with the effects of excessive alcohol consumption and therefore, in an ordinary case, will not need expert assistance.’).””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Woods v. State · Saunders v. State

2. “' Barnes v. State , 855 S.W.2d 173 , 174 (Tex. App. 1993).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bohannon v. State · 265 So. 3d 387 - Gaston v. State

3. ““Section' 12-21-137, Ala. Code 1975, specifically provides: ‘The right of cross-examination, thorough and sifting, belongs to every party as to the witnesses called against him.’ ‘A defendant cannot complain about the state’s inquiring as to matters first brought into’ the case by the defendant.’ State v. Thomas, 820 S.W.2d 538, 545 (Mo.Ct.App.1991). “While evidence of a criminal defendant’s prior bad acts is generally inadmissible,' a defendant is not in a position to complain of the State inquiring about matters brought into the case by his own question.’ State v. Fassero, 256 S.W.3d 109, 118 (Mo.2008). [[Image here]] “‘“The doctrine of opening the door allows a party to explore otherwise inadmissible evidence on cross-examination when the opposing party has made unfair prejudicial use of related evidence on direct examination.” United States v. Lum, 466 F.Supp. 328, 334 (D.Del.) (citations omitted), aff'd without opinion, 605 F.2d 1198 (3d Cir.1979). “The doctrine ... is limited to testimony that might explain or contradict the testimony offered by the opposing party on direct examination; it cannot be ‘subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice.’ ” Id. at 335 (quoting United States v. Winston, 447 F.2d 1236, 1240 (D.C.Cir.1971)).’ “United States v. Durham, 868 F.2d 1010, 1012 (8th Cir.1989).””

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