State v. Meyer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 25 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. “The state must carry the burden to make good the charge in the essential particulars.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 221 Wis. 2d 20 - State v. Flowers · 182 Wis. 2d 251 - State v. Goldstein

2. “*“. . . This provision also suggests that the legislature intended to give the accused an opportunity to avail himself of the right afforded by the law which, except in certain cases, excludes evidence of other offenses from being submitted to the jury as proof of the guilt of the accused of the specific offense for which he is on trial. It is beyond controversy that proof of former sentences of the accused must necessarily prejudice the minds of the jurors against his interest when trying him for the offense with which he is charged. It is therefore a reasonable inference from the legislative regulation giving the accused the privilege of admitting such former sentences on the trial that it was intended that evidence thereof should not be received after such admission, and that there was no issue respecting such allegations for submission to the jury. Though this practice and procedure is not formally inserted in the statute, it follows by necessary implication in order to secure to the accused the rights manifestly contemplated by it.’ “In so considering the matter, Mr. Justice Siebecker said (p. 534): ‘We are of opinion that no evidence shall be received nor comment to the jury be permitted in cases wherein former convictions and sentences, as embraced in secs. 4736-4738, Stats. (1898), are alleged when the accused admits the truth thereof on the trial.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 40 Wis. 2d 724 - Wells v. State

3. “The court should hesitate to abandon the rule granting to an accused the fundamental right to be tried only upon evidence which bears upon the specific offense charged against him—an ancient right firmly imbedded in our jurisprudence—and one as valuable to the body of society as it is to the individual on trial. Important to society, because if we permit it here, where it may seem on account of the apparent guilt of the defendant that he has not been prejudiced, it is at least possible that it may be permitted in the case of an innocent person accused of a violation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 73 Wis. 2d 464 - Mulkovich v. State