State v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “After careful analysis of [the five Jones’] factors, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The prior con- motions for burglary in 1977 and aggravated robbery in 1981 have legitimate impeachment value because they allow the jury to see “the whole person ” and therefore permit the jury to better judge the truth of the defendant’s statements. * * * One factor weighing against the use of prior conviction is the importance of having a defendant testify at trial. A judge may preclude impeachment by even a relevant prior conviction if as a consequence of being impeached the defendant does not testify. * * * There is no way of knowing whether appellant would have testified regardless of the trial court’s ruling. We also do not know what appellant would have said had he taken the stand. It does appear that had appellant testified, his credibility would have been crucial; the jury would have had to determine whether to believe the appellant or [the victim]. Consequently, even if appellant had testified, the credibility factor would have been weighed heavily in favor of admitting the prior convictions. We there-, fore find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that the probative value of admitting the prior convictions outweighed their prejudicial effect.”

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