Baker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 68 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ In an appeal from a criminal conviction, appellate counsel should carefully consider the issues, and those that are weak or without merit, as well as those which could result in nothing more than harmless error, should not be included as issues on appeal. Likewise, the fact that the defendant requests such an issue or issues to be raised does not require appellate counsel to include them. Conscientious counsel should only raise issues on appeal which, in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, have merit.’ ” 280 Kan. at 440 .”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Guebara · State v. Requena

2. ““THE COURT: The witness gave contradictory testimony as to when she last saw the victim in this case, so there may be some basis even for questioning the credibility of the witness. But again, that would not be in the Court’s opinion sufficient to determine the issues of the motion for new trial. The primary basis for determining this motion is a review of the testimony that would be proffered by Linda K. Rogers and how that relates to the trial testimony of the victim, and the Court finds that the proffered testimony does not contradict the testimony of the victim in any material manner, but for the most part corroborates her testimony. The evidence proffered by the witness Rogers can’t under any stretch of the imagination be construed as such materiality that it would be likely to produce a different result. “THE COURT: The Court first finds, first of all, that the evidence was not obtained because there is not diligence in hunting for it. It was available, could have been found, but the defense was not diligent in getting it. Secondly, there is a question of credibility which I have mentioned, and thirdly the Court finds that the testimony proffered would not under any circumstances be sufficient to justify the granting of a new trial and is not considered by the Court to be of such materiality that it would be likely to produce a different result upon retrial. Accordingly, the motion must be and is hereby denied.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 16 Kan. App. 2d 605 - State v. Childers · State v. Fethi El Ayadi

3. ““The failure of counsel to raise an issue on appeal is not, per se, to be equated with ineffective assistance of counsel. As stated by the Supreme Court in Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 , 77 L. Ed. 2d 987 , 103 S. Ct. 3308 (1983): ‘Experienced advocates since time beyond memory have emphasized the importance of winnowing out weaker arguments on appeal and fo cusing on one central issue if possible, or at most on a few key issues. Justice Jackson, after observing appellate advocates for many years, stated: “One of the first tests of a discriminating advocate is to select the question, or questions, that he will present orally. Legal contentions, like the currency, depreciate through over-issue. The mind of an appellate judge is habitually receptive to the suggestion that a lower court committed an error. But receptiveness declines as the number of assigned errors increases. Multiplicity hints at lack of confidence in any one. . . . [Experience on the bench convinces me that multiplying assignments of error will dilute and weaken a good case and will not save a bad one.” Jackson, Advocacy Before the United States Supreme Court, 25 Temple L.Q. 115, 119 (1951). Justice Jackson’s observation echoes the advice of countless advocates before him and since.’ 463 U.S. at 751-52 . We agree. In an appeal from a criminal conviction, appellate counsel should carefully consider the issues, and those that are weak or without merit, as well as those which could result in nothing more than har”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 19 Kan. App. 2d 686 - State v. Grant