State v. Tkacz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Trawitzki was not about numbers or how the numbers came to be that way; it was about whether the jury had an adequate basis to question the credibility of the witnesses such that a failure to impeach with the exact number of convictions would likely not have affected the outcome of the case. See Trawitzki, 2001 WI 77 at ¶ 44 . While we do recognize that the number of convictions a witness has is relevant to the jury's assessment of a witness's credibility, we are not convinced that the result of Tkacz's trial would have been different had the jury known the exact number of [a State witnesses convictions. Our confidence in the outcome of the trial is not undermined by Tkacz's counsel's failure to impeach [the witness] with her additional convictions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gary M. B.

2. “Conflict of interest: former client. A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not: (a) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents in writing after consultation; or (b) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as Rule 1.6 would permit with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 292 Wis. 2d 453 - State v. Medina

3. “While the exact number of convictions might have incrementally weakened the credibility of the witnesses, this decrease is not enough to establish a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different verdict.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gary M. B.