194 Wis. 2d 79 - State v. Marks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] witness who intends to or who has moved to modify his or her sentence may legitimately fear that ... but for [ ] additional incriminating testimony there is a strong likelihood the sentencing court would reduce the sentence. The fear of the defendant in giving incriminating testimony is just as real in this situation as [when] ... [t]here [is] a potential danger to [ the witness ] of an increased sentence resulting from his own testimony.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Graham v. Durr

2. “it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 WI App 222 - State v. Langenbach

3. “where an appeal is pending, before an appeal as of right or plea withdrawal has expired, or where the defendant intends to or is in the process of moving to modify his or her sentence and can show an appreciable chance of success.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Tate v. Schwarz