State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 362 Wis. 2d 370 - State v. Andre M. Chamblis · 2005 WI App 188 - State v. James

2. “Mode and order of interrogation and presentation. (1) Control by judge. The judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to do all of the following: (a) Make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth. (b) Avoid needless consumption of time. (c) Protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2005 WI App 188 - State v. James

3. “[i]nthe exercise of this right, the accused must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.”

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