State v. Gillian’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and of course the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilds v. State · State v. White

2. “One of the accepted bases for the admissibility of evidence of other crimes arises when such evidence “furnishes part of the context of the crime” or is necessary to a “full presenta tion” of the case, or is so intimately connected with and explanatory of the crime charged against the defendant and is so much a part of the setting of the case and its “environment” that its proof is appropriate in order “to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context or the ‘res gestae’ ” or the “uncharged offense is ‘so linked together in point of time and circumstances with the crime charged that one cannot be fully shown without proving the other ... ’ [and is thus] part of the res gestae of the crime charged.” And where evidence is admissible to provide this “full presentation” of the offense, “[t]here is no reason to fragmentize the event under inquiry” by suppressing parts of the “res gestae.””

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

3. “Included in the Confrontation Clause protection is the right to cross-examine any State’s witness as to possible sentences faced when there exists “a substantial possibility [the witness] would give biased testimony in an effort to have the solicitor highlight to [a] future [court]” how the witness cooperated in the instant case. See Sims, 348 S.C. at 25 , 558 S.E.2d at 523 ; see also Mizzell, 349 S.C. at 332-33 , 563 S.E.2d at 318 .”

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