State v. Murchison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The law presumes a judge is unbiased and not prejudiced. We have said [a] ruling adverse to a party in the same or prior proceeding does not render a judge biased so as to require disqualification. The test for the appearance of impartiality is one of reasonableness and recusal is not required in response to spurious or vague charges of impartiality.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rath v. Rath · Datz v. Dosch

2. “The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and Art. I, § 12 of the North Dakota Constitution, guarantee a criminal defendant effective assistance of counsel. A defendant has a fundamental right to counsel during all critical stages of the prosecution. In our state, the preliminary hearing is for the purpose of determining whether there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime charged, requiring the accused to stand trial. At that hearing, the defendant has the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses and may introduce evidence. A preliminary hearing conducted for this purpose and of this type is considered a critical stage of the proceedings at which the defendant has a constitutional right to representation by counsel. Additionally, [Rule 44(a) of] our rules of criminal procedure set[s] forth the right to appointed counsel.... Howev er, there is no legal reason to appoint counsel for someone who can afford and obtain his own attorney. Before counsel will be appointed, a defendant has the burden of establishing he is indigent and qualifies for appointment of counsel. The waiver of the right to counsel must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. The standard of review on an alleged denial of a constitutional right to counsel is de novo. Whether there has been an intelligent waiver of constitutional rights depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including”

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

3. “judge must determine whether a reasonable person could, on the basis of all the facts, reasonably question the judge's impartiality.”

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