State v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: [What] I'm expecting [the state] to show here is there's some, um, some video of [defendant] walking into the jail after he was arrested. So he's kind of, uh, in handcuffs, walking into the jail. There's no audio. "* * * * * "I guess what my concern becomes is it's showing [defendant] in custody. Just as in trial here, um, you know, the jury's not to know custodial status, seeing him, you know, with the walk of shame, handcuffs on, being taken to the jail I think creates a, creates a problem for us. Even understanding the State's trying to show it for what he's wearing, nonetheless, it's, it's certainly showing him in, in police custody, and that's where my, um, my concern lies. "THE COURT: Is that an objection? "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes. That's my-my objection is to the, uh, admissibility of this, of this video on those grounds. "THE COURT: And, and the-and what's the objection? I mean, what's-what rule do you cite to say it's [not admissible]? "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: [I] guess it always comes down to, in a, in a relevance type of situation, the, uh, comparing the relevance, which I'll, I'll concede there is some relevance there because there's, uh-we're talking about the clothing, but versus the, the prejudicial value here. "Now the jury can certainly never know while I'm in trial, you know, we don't bring [defendant] in with the orange jumpsuit because, uh, the, the jury can never know. It's prejudicial for them to know that he's in custody on this. "I think ”

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

2. “"(1) 'analyze the quantum of probative value of the evidence and consider the weight or strength of the evidence'; (2) 'determine how prejudicial the evidence is, [that is,] to what extent the evidence may distract the jury from the central question whether the defendant committed the charged crime'; (3) balance those two factors; and (4) make a ruling to admit some, all, or none of the proponent's evidence."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 292 Or. App. 488 - State v. Sim

3. “given Mayfield 's clear directive that the 'judge errs if the judge *** fails to make a record which reflects an exercise of discretion,' 302 Or. at 645 , 733 P.2d 438 , defendant's request for [OEC 403 ] balancing advised the trial court of the need to both engage in balancing and make a record of that balancing and, thus, preserved the error.”

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