State v. Kaufman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is well settled that a defendant who testifies may be impeached by proof of prior inconsistent statements. * * * Moreover, the statute ‘does not mean that a defendant can take the stand and in answer to one or two well-prepared interrogatories sweep, away the whoié stnictuf e of the state’s case, and then remain immune from a .cross-exarrpnation on the issue thus tendered.’ When ‘The questions put to him involved practically the whole issue tendered by the indictment, * * * he cannot be heard to complain that the state proceeded to cross-examine him on these matters. * * * Cross-examination, as used in the statute, does not mean a mere categorical review of the matters stated by defendant.’ * * * Furthermore, as said in State v. Ayres, 314 Mo. 574 , 285 S.W. 997, 998 , in admitting a prior statement about a matter inconsistent with defendant’s testimony in chief: ‘The “matter referred to in his examination in chief” means the things he testifies about. * * * If the defendant in chief in a general way refers to a subject, he may be examined in detail as to that subject. Where he states a fact in relation to his actions, the prosecutor may inquire as to particular circumstances which would throw light on that fact.’ So, in this case, defendants’ sweeping denial of the theft was a statement of fact in such a general way as to open for cross-examination in detail the whole subject of whether or not they committed it; and made their prior inconsistent statements that they did ”

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