State v. Finley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . If the disqualification is such as would frustrate the ends of justice and prevent a lawful verdict the rights of the defendant, as well as the interests of the public, require the court to arrest the progress of the trial and start afresh with a legal and impartial jury. If during the trial the court should learn of a corrupt interference with a juror or that through some outside sinister influence one of the jury had agreed to vote for conviction regardless of the testimony it would be conceded that a pressing necessity for the discharge of the jury had occurred. When a juror, as in this case, confesses to an incurable prejudice which disqualifies him from exercising the functions of a juror or acting impartially as between the parties a continuance of the trial would be a farce, as the objeot of a trial — a fair and impartial verdict — becomes an impossibility. After learning of this situation by a judicial inquiry nothing was left for the court except to discharge that jury and impanel another. “The sufficiency of the inquiry and of the finding of a necessity for the discharge is challenged. To warrant a discharge it has been decided that there must be, ‘first, an absolute necessity for such discharge; second, the court must make inquiry and find and determine that such necessity existed at the time of the discharge; and, third, the essential facts as to such necessity and the finding of the court thereon must be made a matter of record; or the defendant may succes”

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

2. ““Although, they may be charged in the same count of an information under 21-524, supra, larceny and burglary are separate and distinct offenses. There is no compound offense of burglary and larceny. (State v. Bratcher, 105 Kan. 593 , 185 Pac. 734 ; and State v. Mooney, 93 Kan. 353 , 144 Pac. 228 .) Even though charged in the same indictment a conviction may be had for one offense, notwithstanding an acquittal for the other. (State v. Ingram, 198 Kan. 517 , 426 P. 2d 98 .) . . .” (l. c. 57, 58) (Emphasis supplied)”

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