State v. Schroeder’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[The computer analyst] testified that when he searches a computer, he systematically goes through and opens user-created files regardless of their names. This makes sense, as the user is free to name a file anything. Were [the computer analyst] to limit his search to files whose names suggest the type of evidence he seeks, it would be all too easy for defendants to hide computer evidence: Name your porn file “1986 tax return” and no one can open it. While systematically opening all user-created files, [the computer analyst] opened one that contained images that he considered child pornography. At that point, he stopped his search and called Mal-chow [his supervisor]. He did not resume the search and find the rest of the nude images of children until after a second search warrant had been issued.”

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

2. “The statute does not require that an expert make out a report reciting in detail the bases for his or her opinion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 387 Wis. 2d 685 - State v. Estrada

3. “is to enable [defendants] to prepare for trial ..., not to do their preparation for them.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 387 Wis. 2d 685 - State v. Estrada