State v. Chamley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) presenting a defense is not a simple matter of telling one’s story, but requires adherence to various technical rules governing the conduct of a trial; (2) a lawyer has substantial experience and training in trial procedure and that the prosecution will be represented by an experienced attorney; (3) a person unfamiliar with legal procedures may allow the prosecutor an advantage by failing to make objections to inadmissible evidence, may not make effective use of such rights as the voir dire of jurors, and may make tactical decisions that produce unintended consequences; (4) a defendant proceeding pro se will not be allowed to complain on appeal about the competency of [her] representation; and (5) the effectiveness of [her] defense may well be diminished by [her] dual role as attorney and accused.”

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

2. “In many sex crime cases, credibility of the witnesses is of paramount importance. In fact, it may well be the most important factor the trier of fact considers because there is often no direct evidence implicating the defendant. Moreover, allegations of sexual misconduct are easy to allege and difficult to disprove. When this is the case, the jury's decision to convict or acquit comes down to one person's word against another's. The victor of this credibility duel wins more than just vindication; the prize is a favorable verdict.”

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

3. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”

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