State v. Goins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 59 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Since the propounded question merely called for an explanation or a clarification of what had already been testified to on cross examination we doubt that it was objectionable. * *" State v. Goins, 232 La. 238 , 94 So.2d 244, 251 , certiorari denied 355 U.S. 847 , 78 S.Ct. 74 , 2 L.Ed.2d 57 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Melerine · State v. Melerine

2. ““ * * * The District Attorney stated that he had made up the answer to the Prayer for Oyer from the affidavit, which had been prepared by the police and the Assistant who accepted the charges, and all witnesses on the affidavit at that time were given to defendants. Subsequently, when preparing the case for trial, he discovered these additional witnesses and requested that they be issued subpoenaes. The affidavit, which is part of the record and available to defense attorneys, contains the names of these witnesses. Although it cannot be established when these names were added to the affidavit, the subpoenaes were prepared for all State witnesses prior to April 12, 1965, when they were issued and service was made by the sheriffs on April 13, 1965. [The trial took place on April 20, 1965.] “Defense counsel stated that they were not aware, until the morning of the trial when the names of the State’s witnesses were called, that the State would use these witnesses whose names were not listed. Defense counsel did not ask for a continuance. “The Court overruled the objection and permitted the witnesses to testify over counsels’ objections. At the outset it is to be noted that not one of these three witnesses could identify either of the defendants and, in fact, stated they had not seen them before the day of the trial. * * * “ ‡ * * “Since the State was under no obligation, legally, to furnish the names of the State’s witnesses and the Court could not order the State to do so, the f”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Jones