State v. Dennison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]t is widely held that it is improper to permit a witness to claim a testimonial privilege in front of the jury where the witness's intention not to testify is known beforehand.... Our appellate courts follow that general rule. Our Supreme Court has stated [that] ... [i]t is firmly established that [n]either [the state nor the defendant] has the right to benefit from any inferences the jury may draw simply from the witness' assertion of the privilege either alone or in conjunction with questions that have been put to him.... The rule is grounded not only in the constitutional notion that guilt may not be inferred from the exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege but also in the danger that a witness's invoking the Fifth Amendment in the presence of the jury will have a disproportionate impact on their deliberations. The jury may think it high courtroom drama of probative significance when a witness takes the Fifth. In reality the probative value of the event is almost entirely undercut by the absence of any requirement that the witness justify his fear of incrimination and by the fact that it is a form of evidence not subject to cross-examination.... Accordingly, we have held that a witness may not be called to the stand in the presence of the jury merely for the purpose of invoking his privilege against self-incrimination.... Such testimony is not relevant, and could be prejudicial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 174 Conn. App. 675 - State v. O'Donnell · 2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 1297 - Ruggiero v. Christoforo, No. Cv 98 9412137 S (Jan. 20, 2003)

2. “"[A] witness may not be called to the stand in the presence of the jury merely for the purpose of invoking his privilege against self-incrimination. State v. Person, 215 Conn. 653 , 577 A.2d 1036 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1048 , 111 S.Ct. 756 , 112 L.Ed.2d 776 (1991); State v. Bryant, supra, [683]; State v. Reddick, 197 Conn. 115 , 126-28 , 496 A.2d 466 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1067 , 106 S.Ct. 822 , 88 L.Ed.2d 795 (1986)." State v. Dennison, 220 Conn. 652 , 660 , 600 A.2d 1343 (1991). This rule is grounded "`in the danger that a witness's invoking the Fifth Amendment in the presence of the jury will have a disproportionate impact on their deliberations.'" State v. Eichstedt, 20 Conn. App. 395 , 401 , 567 A.2d 1237 , cert. denied, 214 Conn. 806 , 573 A.2d 318 (1990), quoting Bowles v. United States, 439 F.2d 536 , 541-42 (D.C. Cir. 1970), cert. denied. 401 U.S. 995 , 91 S.Ct. 1240 , 28 L.Ed.2d 533 (1971).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 1297 - Ruggiero v. Christoforo, No. Cv 98 9412137 S (Jan. 20, 2003)

3. “In Namet [v. United States , 373 U.S. 179 , 186-87, 83 S.Ct. 1151 , 10 L. Ed. 2d 278 (1963) ], the United States Supreme Court identified two areas where prejudice can occur. First, some courts have indicated that error may be based upon a concept of prosecutorial misconduct, when the Government makes a conscious and flagrant attempt to build its case out of inferences arising from use of the testimonial privilege.... A second theory seems to rest upon the conclusion that, in the circumstances of a given case, inferences from a witness' refusal to answer added critical weight to the prosecution's case in a form not subject to cross-examination, and thus unfairly prejudiced the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 174 Conn. App. 675 - State v. O'Donnell