State v. McCrary’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]f an ex parte communication is invited or initiated by the judge, no prejudice needs to be shown ... Prejudice is implicit in the judge’s invitation or initiation of an improper ex parte communication.” (citing State v. Barker, 227 Neb. 842 , 420 N.W.2d 695, 699 (1988)). Id. We also noted,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gokey · State v. Wilson

2. “Any contact by the trial court with a witness or potential witness other than for scheduling or merely procedural matters should be accompanied with full due process protection for both parties such as advance notice and an opportunity to be heard SDCL ch 16-2. Code of Judicial conduct, Canon 3B(7). “A judge must not independently investigate the facts in a case.” Canon 3B(7)(a) cmt. Clearly this prohibition was not followed in this case and we need not ponder the effect of this ex parte contact. In O’Connor v. Leapley, 488 N.W.2d 421, 423 (S.D.1992) we held that "[i]f an ex parte communication is invited or initiated by the judge, no prejudice needs to be shown ... Prejudice is implicit in the judge’s invitation or initiation of an improper ex parte communication.” (citing State v. Barker, 227 Neb. 842 , 420 N.W.2d 695, 699 (1988)).”

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

3. “Trial courts enjoy wide latitude in determining the applicable sentence for a defendant. State v. Milk, 2000 SD 28, ¶ 10 , 607 N.W.2d 14, 17 (citation omitted). In order' to determine the appropriate sentence, the ‘sentencing court should’ acquire a thordugh acquaintance with the character and history of the man before it. Id. ¶ 16 (quoting State v. Hinger, 1999 SD 91, ¶21 , 663 N.W.2d 542 , 548 (citation omitted)). Therefore, we have held that sentencing courts may consider an extremely broad range of evidence in order to familiarize itself with a particular defendant. State v. Arabie, 2003 SD 57, ¶ 21 , 663 N.W.2d 250, 257 . This consideration 'may include “inquiry into ‘uncharged conduct or even conduct that was' acquitted.’ ” Id. (citing US v. Schaefer, 291 F.3d 932, 944 (7thCir.2002)).”

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