Inda v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In the instant case there was no proof that the witness was absent from the state, no proof of death or incapacity, and no specific testimony of diligence on the part of the State to procure such witness. ... As the evidence of the witness was necessary to secure a conviction, the State ought to have used due diligence to produce him at the trial. . . . “The rule is quite uniformly held that such testimony on a former trial may be received in a subsequent trial of the same case. The courts have shown a greater reluctance to accept such testimony given on a preliminary examination. The rule, however, is based on the law of necessity to promote justice. The necessity must be first shown. In case of the death of the witness or his permanent incapacity to testify, the necessity is generally conceded. The absence of the witness from the state has less support, but the weight of authority seems to be in favor of admitting the evidence. The great weight of authority is to the effect that due diligence to obtain the missing witness must affirmatively appear, in order that the evidence be admissible. . . .” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 44 Wis. 2d 440 - State v. La Fernier