Bailey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 27 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Assignments 17 and 18, appellant challenges the correctness of the court’s striking the testimony of Irene Wright. She testified that appellant lived close to her and that she had received several telephone calls for him from a person who identified herself as the prosecuting witness. She did not know the prosecutrix and was not sure that the voice was that of a white woman! We think this testimony was properly excluded for the reason that the identity of the person who talked to the witness over the telephone was not satisfactorily identified. ‘ Generally, in order to introduce evidence of a telephone conversation or communication, otherwise unobjectionable, the identity of the person, who is claimed to have talked over the telephone, must first be satisfactorily established by the party seeking the introduction of the telephone conversation. To hold one responsible for statements and answers made over the telephone by unidentified persons would open the door for fraud and imposition,’ 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, §366, P. 344.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bailey v. State · Roleson v. State

2. ““We think the court did not err in refusing to allow the jury commissioners to testify. They had not been subpoenaed to appear as witnesses and were not present. Furthermore, after the court had denied his request that they be permitted to testify, appellant failed to show what the jury commissioners would have said had they testified. See Turner v. State, 224 Ark. 505 , 275 S.W.2d 24 . “Appellant next argues that the above testimony of Louis Rosteck alone was sufficient to show racial discrimination. We do not agree. We think Rosteck’s testimony,— which speaks for itself, — does not show an intentional and systematic limitation;.of Negroes on the jury list.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bailey v. Henslee