State v. White’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

148 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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We have long held that `[w]hether to consolidate or sever the trials of defendants involved in the same criminal incident lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. (Citations omitted.) Ordinarily justice is better subserved where the parties are tired together. (Citation omitted.) Joint trials of persons jointly indicted or informed against are the rule, and separate trials the exception resting in the discretion of the court. (Citation omitted.) A separate trial will be ordered where the defenses of the accused are antagonistic, or evidence will be introduced against one which will not be admissible against others, and it clearly appears that a joint trial will probably be prejudicial to the rights of one or more of the accused. The test for the trial court is whether substantial injustice is likely to result unless a separate trial be accorded. (Citation omitted. Emphasis added.) [T]he phrase prejudicial to the rights of the parties means something more than that a joint trial will probably be less advantageous to the accused than separate trials. (Citation omitted.) In the determination of whether substantial injustice is likely to result from a joint trial or whether such injustice has in fact resulted, an important factor to consider is whether the defenses of the codefendant[s] are incompatible and completely antagonistic to each other. (Citations omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Straub, No. Cr7-201063 (Nov. 27, 2002)

2. “(a) Reasonable means of restraint may be employed if the judicial authority finds such restraint reasonably necessary to maintain order. If restraints appear potentially necessary and the circumstances permit, the judicial authority may conduct an evidentiary hearing outside the presence of the jury before ordering such restraints. The judicial authority may rely on information other than that formally admitted into evidence. Such information shall be placed on the record outside the presence of the jury and the defendant given the opportunity to respond to it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 190 Conn. App. 332 - State v. Marcus H.