22 Wis. 2d 457 - Kopacka v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . Each case involving the issue of denial of a speedy trial turns on its own facts, although the general rule is stated to be that the right to a speedy trial is a right to be tried as soon as is reasonably possible. A motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial will be denied where the accused is tried as soon as the orderly conduct of the business of the court permits. . . .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 53 Wis. 2d 563 - State v. Kwitek · 55 Wis. 2d 168 - Taylor v. State

2. ““The general rule as to the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases is stated as follows in 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, p. 261, sec. 273: “ ‘The modern doctrine is extremely liberal in the admission of any circumstances which may throw light upon the matter being investigated, great latitude must be given the state in the production of its evidence in proof of criminal charges. ... in no case is evidence to be excluded of facts or circumstances connected with the principal transaction from which an inference can be reasonably drawn as to the truth of a disputed fact. All facts tending to elucidate the matter under discussion which are referable to the point in issue tend to exhibit the res gestae or to establish a chain of circumstantial evidence in respect of the act charged. It is necessary only that they tend to prove the issue or constitute a link in the chain of evidence. Evidence of circumstances which tend to connect the accused with the commission of a crime is properly admitted, even though inconclusive in character. Such evidence is competent to establish many varying facts.’ “This court has stated that circumstantial evidence may be and often is stronger and more satisfactory than direct evidence. See State v. Johnson. (1960), 11 Wis. 2d 130, 135 , 104 N. W. 2d 379 . The dissenting opinion in the Johnson Case also recognized that most cases involving the crime of burglary rest to a very great extent, if not solely, on circumstantial evidence due to th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 49 Wis. 2d 350 - State v. Heidelbach

3. ““Mere lapse of time does not, by itself, constitute denial of the right to speedy trial . . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 61 Wis. 2d 236 - Day v. State