State v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It seems to be well settled that litigants, and especially defendants in criminal cases, should not be hampered in their choice of those by whom they choose to prove their cases. And it has been held that they have the right to call as their witness the prosecuting attorney.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Quattlebaum · State v. Inman

2. ““From early years, it has been held in this State that it is of doubtful propriety in the trial of a case, where the conventional relation of attorney and client exists, for an attorney to testify for a client as to matters in issue. It was said in Price v. Moses, 10 Rich. Law, 454, 44 S. C. L. 454: ‘The advocate and the witness should not be mixed up in the same case, and in all instances where it is known before the commencement of a suit that an attorney is to be a witness, he should decline the position of an advocate.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Samuel v. Young

3. “Although a prosecuting attorney is competent to testify, his testifying is not approved by the Courts except where it is made necessary by the circumstances of the case, and, if he knows before the trial that he will be a necessary witness, he should withdraw and have other counsel prosecute the case. The propriety of allowing the prosecutor to testify is a matter largely within the trial Court's discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Inman