State v. Oswald’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

96 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . However, as a word of caution, this instruction quite properly could have been given at the time of the original charge. If so given all question with regard to the coercive effect of the same would be removed. Tire practice of lecturing a jury in a criminal case after it has reported a failure to agree is not to be commended and under circumstances differing from the present case might well be held coercive and erroneous as invading the province of the jury.” (p. 261.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Scruggs · State v. Earsery

2. ““This case has been exhaustively and carefully tried by both sides and has been submitted to you for decision and verdict. Although under the law a verdict must be unanimous and should be based upon the honest judgment and conviction of each individual juror, and not upon mere acquiescence for the sake of expediency, it is still necessary that you examine the matters submitted to you with the proper regard for, and deference to, the opinion of each other. “There is no reason to think that a jury better qualified than you would be chosen in the future to try this case. Therefore, each of you should listen to the arguments of the others with an open-mindedness characteristic of a disposition to be convinced by them; if you differ in your views of the evidence, you should all be led by such differences of opinion to scrutinize the evidence more closely and to re-examine more closely the grounds of your opinion. “In conferring you should lay aside all mere pride of opinion and you should bear in mind that the jury room is no place for espousing and maintaining, in a spirit of controversy, either side of a cause. The aim to be kept in view is the truth as it appears from the evidence, which evidence you must consider with the instructions.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Scruggs

3. ““This court has said when an exhibit has been before the court and jury, subject to their inspection for all purposes of the trial the objection cannot prevail on appeal. (State v. Bowman, 80 Kan. 473 , 103 Pac. 84 .) Such an oversight occurring either in the trial of this case or in preparing the record on appeal would be a technical error or defect mentioned in K. S. A. 62-1718, which reads: “ ‘On an appeal, the court must give judgment without regard to technical errors or defects, or to exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.’” (p. 255.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Benson