State v. Bunk’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently July 1999 · most notably State v. Weleck (1952), State v. Tune (1953)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 41 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on People v. . Shilitano · Maytag Co. v. Apex Electrical Manufacturing Co. · United States ex rel. Carmelo v. Burke · State v. Goldberger · State v. Collins
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In determining whether or not the alleged newly discovered evidence would probably change the result reached at the trial of these defendants the credibility of that evidence must be evaluated, and this question must be resolved by the trial judge in the first instance and not by a jury as asserted by the appellants. To hold otherwise would make a mockery of justice and for the easy unsettlement of judgments, for new evidence even though obviously testimonially untrustworthy, would mean a new trial in every instance to have the credibility of the witnesses submitted to a jury. We concur in what was said by Judge Cardozo in his concurring .opinion in People v. Shilitano, supra, concerning the function of the trial judge upon an application for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence: * * I do not mean that to justify a new trial, he must have been convinced — firmly or with a sense of certainty convinced — that the first story of the witnesses was false and that their new story was true. He might act upon a reasonable probability. But if, on the contrary, he was convinced that the second tale was false, that a criminal league had been formed to set at naught the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court, his duty was clearly marked. * * * He was not at liberty to shift upon the shoulders of another jury his own responsibility. That would have been to make the conspiracy triumph. He was charged with a responsibility to seek the truth himself.” [ 218 N.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lewis“Such judicial discretion cannot be arbitrary, vague or fanciful but rather must be governed by and in accord with established principles of law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.