Rennert v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is the rule that the presence of a stranger in the grand jury room during the investigation of a criminal charge is not sufficient to abate an indictment, unless it appears that the person indicted was thereby injured in his substantial rights. Shattuck v. State, 11 Ind. 473 (sic)." Also quoted in Rennert v. State, (1975) Ind., 329 N.E.2d 595 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fair v. State · State v. Bowman

2. ““The law regarding the presence in the grand jury room of those unauthorized by statute, see Ind. Code § 35-1-15-10 , Burns § 9-810 (1974 Supp.) [Clerk-Stenographer], Ind. Code § 35-1-15-23 , Burns § 9-826 (1956 Repl.) [Prosecutor], was set forth by this Court in State v. Bates, (1897), 148 Ind. 610, 612-13 , 48 N.E. 2 , 3: ‘It is the rule that the presence of a stranger in the grand jury room during the investigation of a criminal charge, is not sufficient to abate an indictment, unless it appears that the person indicted was thereby injured in his substantial rights. Shattuck v. State, 11 Ind. 473 ; Courtney v. State, 5 Ind.App. 356 [ 32 N.E. 335 ]; State v. Clough, 49 Me. 573, 576 ; State v. Kimball, 29 Iowa 267 ; Bennett v. State, 62 Ark. 516, 535 , 36 S.W. 947 . ‘In State v. Clough, supra [49 Me.], on page 576, the court said: “The mere fact that a stranger was present when an indictment was found, would not render it void. Though obviously proper, and highly important, that the proceedings of a grand jury should be in secret, one who is indicted cannot take any advantage of it if they are not. Shattuck v. State, 11 Ind. 473 . The secrecy is not required for his benefit, —but otherwise. ‘One reason may be to prevent the escape of the party, should he know that proceedings were in train against him; and another may be, to secure freedom of deliberation and opinion among the grand jurors, which would be impaired if the part taken by each might be known to the accused.’ 1 G”

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

3. “Appellant's fourth amendment claim, framed in terms of 'an illegal seizure', is tenuous at best. Undoubtedly, there is a legitimate state interest in searching a prisoner's mail for contraband. So, too, the state may justify reading the correspondence to determine whether an escape attempt is impending.”

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