State v. Gruber’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. “[T]his court has demonstrated a strong aversion to the admission of such evidence in State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384, 387 , 233 N.W.2d 755, 758 (1975), where we stated: “* * * Given * * * the aversion of this court to dilution of the defendant’s right to be confronted by witnesses against him, we could not and would not affirm this conviction were it not for the fact that we consider the testimony as a whole to be overwhelmingly persuasive of defendant’s guilt. * * * Our reservations on this phase of the case are such, however, as to prompt this admonition: The use of testimony of an absent witness * * * jeopardizes the fairness of the trial and may result in a reversal in any case .where such testimony is used, unless the evidence of guilt is so strong as to convince us that the * * testimony * * * did not affect the outcome of the case. For this reason, as a matter of policy, the use of such testimony as substantive evidence should be avoided.””

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

2. “[Ajlthough defendant was present at the scene of the crime, presence must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have intentionally aided or promoted the crime which was committed.”

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