Deming v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[0]ur courts in numerous decisions have established and followed the rule that all communications from the judge to the jury pertaining to the substantive rights of the defendant and not merely with the physical requirements of the jury, must be made in open court, in the presence, or within the knowledge of the accused and his counsel so that the accused may not be deprived of his right to except thereto, or to ask for additional instructions by reason of additional matters considered. Hogg v. State (1856), 7 Ind. 551 ; Fish v. Smith (1859), 12 Ind. 563 ; Roberts v. State (1887), 111 Ind. 340 , 12 N.E. 500 ; Quinn v. State (1892), 130 Ind. 340 , 30 N.E. 300 ; Danes v. Pearson (1892), 6 Ind.App. 465 , 33 N.E. 976 ; Coolman v. State (1904), 163 Ind. 503 , 72 N.E. 568 ; Fina v. United States, 10 Cir., (1931), 46 F.2d 643 ; Miles v. State (1944), 222 Ind. 312 , 53 N.E.2d 779 . See also Dean v. State, Ind., (1955), 130 N.E.2d 126 . . . . Furthermore, we have held that, when facts constituting misconduct and irregularities in the jury’s deliberations are shown sufficient to raise a question of doubt as to the fairness and impartiality in the deliberations as to the verdict, prejudice may be conclusively presumed.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 179 Ind. App. 472 - Decker v. State · Childers v. State

2. ““In the present case the information communicated by the judge to the jury was related to the substantive rights of the accused. It was not made in open court in the presence of the accused. It raised a doubt as to the fairness and impartiality in the deliberations of the jury, therefore ‘prejudice may be conclusively presumed.’ Coolman v. State, 163 Ind. 503 , supra. Also, it constituted reversible error for the reason that the communication was not made in open court, in the presence of the accused.””

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

3. ““ ‘Accused must be present when there is any communication between the judge and the jury, after their retirement, and his absence at such time is ordinarily reversible error.’ ” 235 Ind. at 284 , 133 N.E.2d at 52 .”

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