Layman v. Webb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Any person having knowledge or possession of facts that tend to establish the guilt of any other person or corporation charged with an offense against the laws of the State, shall not be excused from giving testimony or producing evidence, when legally called upon so to do, on the ground that it may tend to incriminate him under the laws of the State; but no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may so testify or produce evidence.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nuckols v. Van Wagner · Padgett v. Graham

2. “I.The witness must be called before an examining magistrate and placed under oath. II.A pertinent question must be propounded to the witness by the prosecuting official, defense counsel, or the examining magistrate. III. The witness must refuse to answer the question on the ground that an answer would tend to incriminate the witness under some state law. IV. The prosecuting official, the defense counsel, if there be one, and the witness (with his attorney, if he has one) shall go before the district court of the county, either a district judge or an associate district judge of the county in which the preliminary examination is being conducted, and neither then acting as an examining magistrate. V. The prosecution official must inform the court of the matters set forth in paragraphs I through III above, and ask the advice and assistance of the court in connection with the privilege claimed. VI.The court shall hear the question which the witness has refused to answer. VII.The court shall make certain that the witness understands the question that has been put to him. If the witness does not understand the question, it must be reframed or restated so that there is no doubt that he does understand it. VIII.The court shall then proceed to consider the bare question, which the witness has refused to answer, and shall determine whether or not, from the face of the question, an answer could, in fact, tend to incriminate the witness under any state law. IX. If the question does not, o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nuckols v. Van Wagner

3. “A. If the witness understands the question; B. If the witness understands that the court has ruled that the privilege against self-incrimination may not be validly claimed for that question, and the court has ordered him to answer it. C. If the witness has given all the reason that he has for his refusal to answer the question; and D. If the witness still refuses to answer the question as directed by the court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Presta v. Owsley