State v. Erickson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"At the time Erickson made his motion for severance, he made no showing that he would be prejudiced by a joint trial and he made no affirmative showing that his codefendant, JoAnn Bickel, would testify on his behalf at a separate trial. * * * * * * "In the absence of a showing of prejudice and in the absence of a showing that Erickson's codefendant would testify for him in a separate trial, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Erickson's motion for a severance."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dymowski

2. ““When reviewing a judgment entered upon a jury verdict, an appellate court has only a limited function. See State v. Steele, 211 N.W.2d 855 (N.D.1973), wherein we held, in Syllabus ¶ 14: ‘It is not the function of the supreme court to substitute its judgment for that of the jury but instead only to examine the evidence presented in order to determine whether it supports the verdict and whether the defendant received a fair trial.’ ” State v. Erickson, supra at 765.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Wilson

3. ““ ‘The mere assertion that a eodefendant might be willing to exculpate a defendant is purely speculative. The absence of substantial proof that a codefendant would be willing to testify for the defendant at a later date is, in itself, grounds for denying a motion for severance.’ * * * ” State v. Erickson, N.D., 231 N.W.2d 758, 763 (1976) (citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Winckler