State v. Gilmore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

82 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The court, on motion of the defendant, shall grant a new trial whenever: "(3) New and material evidence that, notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the defendant, was not discovered before or during the trial, is available and if the evidence had been introduced at the trial it would probably have changed the verdict or judgment of guilty."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 408 So. 2d 861 - State v. Talbot · 340 So. 2d 180 - State v. Lee

2. “"On the other hand, a defendant may not be permitted to rob the State's evidence of its fair and legitimate weight by means of a unilateral stipulation: "`Nevertheless, a colorless admission by the opponent may sometimes have the effect of depriving the party of the legitimate moral force of his evidence ; furthermore, a judicial admission may be cleverly made with grudging limitations or evasions or insinuations (especially in criminal cases), so as to be technically but not practically a waiver of proof.' Id. [9 Wigmore on Evidence, § 2591 (3d ed. 1940)] The sensible solution, offered by Wigmore, is to leave the question of admissibility to the trial judge:”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Harvey · 454 So. 2d 871 - State v. Whitlock

3. “"Defendant concedes that without amending the indictment the State could have abandoned the charge of murder in the first degree and proceeded to trial on the lesser charge of murder in the second degree. La.C.Cr.P. art. 61; State v. Doucet, 177 La. 63 , 147 So. 500 (1933); State v. Edwards, 287 So.2d 518 (La. 1973). In State v. Doucet, supra , the accused was charged with murder but the State abandoned that charge and elected to go to trial on the charge of manslaughter. This Court approved the procedure, saying: "* * * The charge of manslaughter is included in that of murder, being a crime of the same generic class as murder, but one of a lesser degree. In such cases the state may abandon the charge of the greater crime and proceed with the prosecution of the lesser, and no formal amendment of the indictment is necessary for that purpose. A motion in open court in the presence of the accused and entered on the minutes prior to the beginning of the trial is sufficient. State v. Bourgeois, 158 La. 713 , 104 So. 627 . State v. Kelly, 176 La. 405 , 146 So. 6 ." 147 So. at 501 . Likewise, the charge of murder in the second degree is a charge of the same generic class as murder in the first degree, although it is a lesser grade of the offense. A verdict of guilty of second degree murder is responsive to the charge of first degree murder. La.C. Cr.P. art. 814, as amended by Acts 1973. Under these circumstances, a motion to proceed on the reduced charge made in open court in the pr”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Brown · 447 So. 2d 1145 - State v. Freeman