Bruno v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘There is a distinction between an agreed statement of facts and evidence offered by way of stipulation. Under an agreed statement of facts both [the] State and the defense agree as to the ultimate facts. Then the facts are not in dispute, and there can be, by definition, no factual conflict. The trier of fact is not called upon to determine the facts as the agreement is to the truth of the ultimate facts themselves. There is no fact-finding function left to perform. To render judgment, the court simply applies the law to the facts agreed upon.... On the other hand, when evidence is offered by way of stipulation, there is no agreement as to the facts which the evidence seeks to establish. Such a stipulation only goes to the content of the testimony of a particular witness if he were to appear and testify. The agreement is to what the evidence will be, not to what the facts are. Thus, the evidence adduced by such a stipulation may well be in conflict with other evidence received. For the trier of fact to determine the ultimate facts on such conflicting evidence, there must be some basis on which to judge the credibility of the witness whose testimony is the subject of the stipulation, or to ascertain the reliability of that testimony, to the end that the evidence obtained by stipulation may be weighed against other relevant evidence adduced.... ’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Motor Vehicle Administration v. Karwacki · Taylor v. State

2. “• The caption of the form included the following: “FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT TO A GUILTY PLEA—NO DIRECT APPEAL RIGHTS ” 10 (emphasis added). • The introduction paragraph stated that Bishop was proceeding “by way of a not guilty plea on an agreed statement of facts to one or more offenses to which you will no doubt be found guilty .... ” (emphasis added). • Paragraph 8 contained the following: “I am technically pleading not guilty”; 11 Instead of my having a judge trial or a jury trial ... the state or defense will present our agreed upon statement of facts to the court. That agreed upon statement of facts will be sufficient for the judge to find me guilty of the offense(s) ....”; and “By proceeding in this manner I am still pleading not guilty and denying guilt. I am not admitting to any of the conduct necessary to establish guilt.” (emphasis added). • Paragraph 9 contained the following: “In this case the agreed statement of facts will be sufficient for the court to find me guilty of each offense ” (emphasis added). • Paragraph 12 contained the following: “I understand that by proceeding in this manner I am giving up my absolute right to plead not guilty and have a trial. If I pled not guilty and had a trial, the State would have to prove each and every count against me by proof beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.” (emphasis added). • Paragraph 14 contained the following: “I understand that by proceeding in this manner I am giving up my right to be tried by a jud”

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