State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If a privilege is exercised not to testify or to prevent another from testifying, either in the action or with respect to particular matters, or to refuse to disclose or to prevent another from disclosing any matter, the judge and counsel may not comment thereon, no presumption shall arise with respect to the exercise of the privilege, and the trier of fact may not draw any adverse inference therefrom. In those jury cases wherein the right to exercise a privilege, as herein provided, may be misunderstood and unfavorable inferences drawn by the trier of the fact, or may be impaired in the particular case, the court, at the request of the party exercising tine privilege, may instruct the jury in support of such privilege.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Smith · State v. Harris

2. ““The prosecutor’s comment made direct reference to the fact that the defendant could not ‘give [the jury] one bit of evidence’ throughout the course of this entire trial. The statement could be perceived as a comment upon the defendant’s failure to testify. It also could be perceived as a comment on the defendant’s failure to establish what he intimated in his opening statement — that the State’s case rested entirely on the testimony of two ‘liars.’ “To the extent that the prosecutor’s comment was directed at the defendant’s failure to testify, it was improper and constituted trial error. However, the statement does not require reversal if it was harmless error. See, e.g., State v. Hamilton, 222 Kan. 341, 345 , 564 P.2d 536 (1977). In order for a federal constitutional error to be considered harmless, this court must ‘be able to declare the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial and ... be able to declare such a belief beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Hamilton, 222 Kan. at 345 . Accord State v. Beebe, 244 Kan. at 53; State v. Bell, 239 Kan. 229 , Syl. ¶ 3, 718 P.2d 628 (1986).” 255 Kan. at 361-62 .”

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

3. “ask whether the language used was outside the wide latitude allowed a prosecutor because it was of such a character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure of the accused to testify or to shift the burden of proof. If so, it is error.”

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