State v. Wheaton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'[W]here alleged juror misconduct claimed as prejudicial is known by the party or his counsel before the verdict is rendered, and no objection is made nor is the matter brought to the court's attention, the party cannot later assert the misconduct as grounds for a new trial.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Saleem · 55 Kan. App. 2d 161 - Kloster v. Hancock (In Re Rockhill Pain Specialists, P.A.)

2. ““The defendant argues most studies on the subject of eyewitness identification have been performed since the Warren decision in 1981. Whether or not that is true, we continue to believe that to allow expert testimony on the subject of the reliability of eyewitness testimony is not the answer to the problems surrounding eyewitness identifications. The cautionary instruction sets forth the factors for the jury to consider in evaluating the eyewitness’ testimony. The defendant argues these instructions do not explain to the jury how to use the factors, e.g., that threat of violence decreases the accuracy of the identification rather than increases its accuracy, as many laymen believe. Extensive cross-examination of the eyewitness and persuasive argument by defense counsel can highlight any inaccuracies which could result because the eyewitness was being threatened or was under stress. State v. Warren, 230 Kan. at 395 . . . . The trial court did not err in ruling the expert testimony on eyewitness identification was inadmissible.” 240 Kan at 352-53.”

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

3. “'If the alleged misconduct is brought to the court's attention a hearing may be held and the situation remedied, if that is possible. If not, a mistrial may be declared immediately without wasting the time and expense required to complete the trial. The rule is a corollary of the contemporaneous objection rule as to evidence and the requirement of an objection to erroneous instructions. A party is not permitted to remain silent in the face of known error, gamble on the verdict, and show his hole card only if he loses. [Citations omitted.]'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 55 Kan. App. 2d 161 - Kloster v. Hancock (In Re Rockhill Pain Specialists, P.A.)