Gee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 72 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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “''The matter of separation of witnesses is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. The court was acting well within this discretion in permitting the prosecutor to retain the investigating police officer to aid him in the prosecution of this case. The fact that this officer was also a witness who later testified in the case does not render the trial judge's discretion abusive."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Budd v. State · Talley v. State

2. “Upon a suggestion of improper and prejudicial publicity, the trial court should make a determination as to the likelihood of resulting prejudice, both upon the basis of content of the publication and the likelihood of its having come to the attention of any juror. If the risk of prejudice appears substantial, as opposed to imaginary or remote only, the court should interrogate the jury collectively to determine who, if any, has been exposed. If there has been no exposure, the court should instruct upon the hazards of such exposure and the necessity for avoiding exposure to out-of-court comment concerning the case. If any of the jurors have been exposed, he must be individually interrogated by the court outside the presence of the other jurors, to determine the degree of exposure and the likely effect thereof. After each juror is so interrogated, he should be individually admonished. After all exposed jurors have been interrogated and admonished, the jury should be assembled and collectively admonished, as in the case of a finding of 'no exposure.' If the imperiled party deems such action insufficient to remove the peril, he should move for a mistrial.”

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

3. ““Appellant claims that the rule of Graham v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 525 , 255 N.E.2d 652 requires that a complete chain of custody be established tracing possession of an original exhibit to the final custodian and that if one link is entirely missing, the exhibit cannot be introduced or made the basis for testimony. .. . . . The rule in Graham, supra, focused on the need to avoid any claim of substitution, tampering or mistake. Non-fungible items do not require a high degree of scrutiny applied to fungible items such as drugs. Wilson v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 469 , 333 N.E.2d 755 . The exhibits in the present case were all evidence with characteristics capable of eyewitness identification, unlike the fungible narcotics involved in Graham . It is a sufficient foundation for the introduction of such items into evidence that a witness identifies the item and it has a relevancy to the issues of the case. Woodard v. State, (1977) Ind., 366 N.E.2d 1160 ; Owens v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 487 , 333 N.E.2d 745 .””

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