State v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In all trials for any crime punishable with death, * * * each defendant shall be entitled to challenge peremptorily twelve jurors, * * * ” “The purpose of allowing challenges for cause is to secure a fair and impartial trial and the right exists independent of any statutory provision since it is an incident of the trial by jury. The Legislature, in adopting those provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure treating of that subject, merely codified the law in existence at the time of the adoption of the Code as a means of readily securing to the accused a fair and impartial trial by jury, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Hence the rule, universally obtaining, that the defendant has the right to have jurors examined as to their qualifications for the purpose of showing grounds for challenge for cause, and also, within reasonable limits, to elicit such facts as will enable him intelligently to exercise his right of peremptory challenge, and it is error for the court to exclude questions which are pertinent for either purpose * * * “We agree with the statement of counsel for the State that the question of a juror’s qualification is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. His ruling is, however, subject to review; and while it will be sustained unless the discretion allowed him is shown to have been unwisely exercised, nevertheless considerable latitude must of necessity be allowed in the examination of jurors and the trial judge is without right to unduly curtai”

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

2. ““It will be seen from the testimony taken out of the presence of the jury, the State proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and to the satisfaction of the court that defendant’s statement, was his voluntary act, and, was not induced by any conduct on the part of the district attorney or the peace officers, to compel the making of same. “Whether the statement be regarded as a confession of guilt or admission involving the existence of a criminal intent, or inculpatory facts tending to establish guilt of the crime charged, proper foundation was laid to admit of the admission in evidence. ****** “In evaluating the truth of the contradictory statements of defendant, and the other witnesses as to the alleged ‘offer’ or promise, the court concluded that the defendant was untruthful, and that no such promise or ‘offer’ was made to the defendant, nor was he ever alone with the district attorney at any time.” “ * * * Our law provides that, before any confession can be introduced in evidence, the State must affirmatively prove that it was freely and voluntarily given and not made under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements or promises. Article 451 and 452, Code of Criminal Procedure (R.S. 15 :451, 452) and Section 11 of Article 1 of the Constitution of 1921. And it is established by our jurisprudence that, before what purports to be a confession can be received in evidence, it must be shown by proof which convinces beyond a reasonable doubt that it. is”

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

3. ““The law presumes that every man is sane. State v. Seminary, 165 La. 67 , 115 So. 370 , State v. Toon, 172 La. 631 , 135 So. 7 . And to warrant the sustaining of a plea of present insanity, thereby preventing trial of a criminal action, it must appear by a preponderance of evidence that the accused is so mentally deficient that he lacks capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him and to assist in the conducting of his defense in a rational manner. * * * That this accused is thus incapacitated is not made to appear by any of the evidence adduced— * * * Rather, there is a substantial disclosure to the contrary. We are unable to conclude, consequently, that the judge erred in declaring him presently sane.” State v. Riviere, 225 La. 114 , 72 So.2d 316, 317 . “Under the law of this state every accused is presumed to be sane, and the burden is on him to establish by a clear preponderance of the evidence that he is so mentally deficient that he lacks capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him and to assist in conducting of his defense in a rational manner. State v. Bailey, 233 La. 40 , 96 So.2d 34 , 69 A.L.R.2d 340 ; State v. Riviere, 225 La. 114 , 72 So.2d 316 , and authorities there cited.” State v. Eubanks, 240 La. 552 , 124 So.2d 543, 552 .”

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