Salinas v. State’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. “(1) It must appear from the motion that the evidence relied on is, in fact, newly discovered, i.e., discovered after the trial; (2) the motion must allege facts from which the court may infer diligence on the part of the movant; (3) the evidence relied on must not be merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) must be material to the issues involved; and (5) must be such as, on a new trial, would probably produce an acquittal.”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Garroutte v. State · Mossberg v. State

2. “Concerning motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the evidence must be such as would probably change the result of the trial. ... Evidence which merely impeaches. a witness's testimony is not usually sufficient to warrant ' the grant of a new trial.... In our opinion, the newly discovered evidence offered by the state in this case has no value beyond impeachment of [the appraiser]: Follett's testimony. - Evidence that Follett relied only upon high comparable sales in his appraisals in another condemnation case does not prove that he slanted his appraisals in the case at bar. No evidence was developed in this case, by cross-examination or otherwise, that Follett selected and relied on certain comparisons to the exclusion of others in his appraisals. Follett's appraisals, like the other appraisals submitted by the landowner, incorporate comparable sales which are of higher value than several of those used by the state's appraisers, but this case is characterized by a lack of closely comparable sales to the subject property because of the uncertain market at the time of the taking. [[Image here]] The additional evidence was unlikely to change the result in this trial, even though it might have discredited Follett's testimony.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mooney v. State

3. “In the first place, the motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, the exercise of which, in the absence of abuse is not reviewable. This is so for the reason that the trial judge is in a better position to determine the possible effect and merit of the alleged newly discovered evidence since he presided over the original trial and heard all the evidence there.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dorman v. State