State v. Rougemont’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Each district court reporter shall attend the district court sessions whenever the appointing judge shall so direct and shall take in shorthand all testimony given orally by the witnesses, all objections and rulings made and exceptions taken, any instructions given orally by the court, and all other proceedings at the hearing or trial not otherwise reduced to writing or as directed by the judge. District court reporters shall perform such other duties relating to the court as the appointing judge directs.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kunkel · Fenske v. Fenske

2. ““The procedure prescribed by the Minnesota Supreme Court is similar to Rule 44(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Both procedures are designed to prevent potential conflicts arising from ‘the possibility of inconsistent pleas, factually inconsistent alibis, conflicts in testimony, differences in degree of involvement in the crime, tactical admission of evidence, the calling and cross-examination and impeachment of witnesses, or strategy in final summation.’ Olsen, 258 N.W.2d at 905 . See also Rule 44(c), F.R.Crim.P., explanatory note. “This court has not adopted the language of Rule 44(c), F.R.Crim.P. See Minutes of N.D. Joint Procedure Committee, October 15-16,1981. Furthermore, in the present case, none of the potential problems arising from dual representation occurred.””

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

3. ““The defendant must voluntarily and with full knowledge of the consequences decide on dual representation. The court should address each defendant personally and advise him of the potential danger of dual representation. The defendant should have an opportunity and be at liberty to question the trial court on the nature and consequences of dual representation and the entire procedure should be placed on the record for review. When satisfactory inquiry does not appear on the record, the burden shifts to the state to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that prejudicial conflict of interests did not exist.””

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