Anderson v. Buchanan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

70 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We, therefore, concur with the views of the Supreme Court of Indiana and its conclusion that the court in which a conviction was had has discretion to grant the writ where it appears that but for alleged false testimony or undiscovered evidence of such a conclusive character that the verdict most probably would not have been rendered ■ and there is strong probability of a miscarriage of justice unless the process be granted. Davis v. State, 200 Ind. 88 , 161 N.E. 375 ; George v. State, 211 Ind. 429 , 6 N.E.2d 336 . We affirm that it is not enough merely to show that a prosecuting witness has subsequently made contradictory statements or that he is willing to swear that his testimony upon the trial was false, for his later oath is no more binding than his former one. State v. Superior Court, 15 Wash. 339 , 46 P. 339 . See also Hysler v. Florida, supra [ 315 U.S. 411 , 62 S.Ct. 691 , 86 L.Ed. 932 ], It may he otherwise if the sole witness repudiates his testimony. It is to be emphasized also that obtaining the writ is not a matter of right but the granting of it is a matter of sound judicial discretion to be exercised upon a showing of reasonable certainty. Elliott v. Com., supra; 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1606, page 155; 31 Am. Jur., Judgments, Sec. 801; Ernst v. State, 179 Wis. 646 , 192 N.W. 65 , 30 A.L.R.. 681; Chambers v. State, 117 Fla. 642 , 158 So. 153 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. Commonwealth · Harris v. Commonwealth

2. “that the court in which a conviction was had has discretion to grant the writ [of coram nobis] where it appears that but for the alleged false testimony ... of such a conclusive character that the verdict most probably would not have been rendered and there is a strong probability of miscarriage of justice unless the process be granted, We affirm that it is not enough to merely show that a prosecuting witness has subsequently made contradictory statements or that he is willing to swear that his testimony upon the trial was false, for his later oath is no more binding than his former one. It may be otherwise if the sole witness repudiates his testimony. It is to be emphasized also that obtaining the writ is not a matter of right but the granting of it is a matter of sound judicial discretion to be exercised upon a showing of reasonable certainty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Spaulding

3. ““ * * * Due diligence to discover the grounds before it was too late to be available under statutory processes is to be considered. Delay in seeking this extraordinary writ until the executioner is seen approaching is obviously a suspicious circumstance. It should always be made to appear with reasonable certainty that earlier action to secure relief and redress was not reasonably possible, or that there is an extreme exigency, before a stay of execution should be ordered.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Reed v. Commonwealth