State v. Wyman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The reason for the rule of exclusion lies in the tendency of triers of fact to give excessive weight against the accused respecting any specific illegal activity. It further tends to confuse the jury concerning the main issue of guilt or innocence of the offense charged and calls upon the accused to account for past wrongdoings for which he is not being tried. The main thrust of such evidence, such as other unrelated wrongful acts of the accused, is to pollute the minds of the jury against the defendant. State v. Garceau, [ 122 Vt. 303 , 170 A.2d 623 ] supra. ‘If such testimony should be admitted, the defendant might be over whelmed by prejudice, instead of being tried upon the evidence affirmatively showing his guilt of the specific offense with which he is charged.’ City of Topeka v. Harvey, 1961, 188 Kan. 841 , 365 P.2d 1109 .””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bourgeois · State v. Eaton

2. “In all practicality his defense depended upon how much weight the jury would give to his testimony. Defendant’s veracity would for all practical purposes settle the matter. How the jury would have resolved the issue of the defendant’s guilt or innocence had the impact of the defendant’s marital status not been with them in their deliberations is at best a matter of conjecture. Under the circumstances the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial compels us to set aside his conviction and afford him a new trial.”

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

3. ““ [E]vidence of conduct of precisely similar nature to that charged, even though not connected with it and inadmissible as such to prove the commission of the act involved in the substantive charge, is uniformly received for the limited and specific purpose of aiding to determine the quality of the act and the legal character of the offense by illustrating the intent with which the act was committed.””

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