Wilson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 83 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““INSTRUCTION NO. 5: It is your duty to determine the facts of this case from the evidence given in court in your presence and to disregard any and all information that you or any of you may have derived from any other source. INSTRUCTION NO. 8: The Court, in its rulings, did not then and does not now intend to express any opinion as to any question of fact, all questions of fact as well as the law being exclusively for your determination as elsewhere stated in these instructions. INSTRUCTION NO. 14: You will understand that you, and you alone, as jurors, are to determine the weight and credit to be given the testimony of the witnesses. These are things for you to determine in your search and endeavor to find the truth of the case, and your final decision must rest solely upon the law and evidence of the case without any reference to the probable consequences. INSTRUCTION NO. 15: You are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. You should reconcile the evidence in this case upon the theory that each and every witness has spoken the truth, if it can be reasonably done. You should not disregard the testimony of any witnesses without due consideration and without just cause. If you find such conflict in the testimony of the witnesses that you cannot, reconcile their testimony, then it is your province to choose whom you will believe and whom you will not believe. In determining what evidence you will receive and what you will r”

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

2. “Appellant’s final attack on the search warrant consists of the claim that the affidavit was not ‘filed.’ The statute requires that: ‘No warrant for search ... shall be issued until there is filed with the ... judge of any city court ... an affidavit,....’ IC 1971, 35 — 1—6—2 (Burns Ind. Stat. Ann.s 9-602 (1974 Supp.)). Appellant rests his argument on the testimony of his trial attorney that on August 3, 1973, said attorney looked for and did not find the affidavit in the records of the Michigan City City Court. However, State’s Exhibit One contained a certificate of the clerk of that court to the effect that the affidavit was a part of the records. Furthermore, the statute requires that an affidavit be filed ‘with the judge’ and the warrant itself recites that an affidavit was filed with the issuing judge. ‘Filing consists of the delivery of the paper to the proper officer for the purpose of being kept on file by him in the proper place.’ Thompson v. State (1921), 190 Ind. 363 , 130 N.E. 412 . The paper (affidavit) was delivered to the proper officer (city judge).”

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

3. ““ ‘A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. . . .’ American Law Institute, Model Penal Code (final draft) (1962).””

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