40 Wis. 2d 162 - State v. Laabs’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 1995
20 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 Sheppard v. Maxwell · Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz · 24 Wis. 2d 527 - State v. Nutley · State v. Stevens · State v. Brodson
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whether a joint trial of codefendants for their respective conduct in relation to a single episode is unduly prejudicial to each defendant is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Nutley, supra; Mandella v. State (1947), 251 Wis. 502 , 29 N. W. 2d 723 ; Kluch v. State (1937), 223 Wis. 381 , 269 N. W. 683 ; Pollack v. State (1934), 215 Wis. 200 , 253 N. W. 560 , 254 N. W. 471 . “A defendant may obtain a severance if a joint trial wrould be prejudicial to his individual interest. In State v. Nutley, supra, at 543, we discussed what constitutes prejudice in this context: “ ‘ “Prejudice” in this sense, means that an entire line of evidence relevant to the liability of only one defendant may be treated as evidence against all defendants by the trier of fact simply because they are tried jointly. Again, if the defendants assert antagonistic defenses, they will often face the double burden of meeting the attack of both the prosecution and their codefendants. Therefore, we have held that if codefendants assert antagonistic defenses, they are entitled to separate trials.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““A motion for change of venue because of community prejudice is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. Sec. 956.08 (3), Stats. This court will not interfere unless an abuse of discretion is demonstrated. Miller v. State (1967), 35 Wis. 2d 777 , 151 N. W. 2d 688 ; State v. Nutley (1964), 24 Wis. 2d 527 , 129 N. W. 2d 155 , certiorari denied, 380 U. S. 918 , 85 Sup. Ct. 912, 13 L. Ed. 2d 803 ; Schroeder v. State (1936), 222 Wis. 251 , 267 N. W. 899 ; State v. Smith (1930), 201 Wis. 8 , 229 N. W. 51 ; Krueger v. State (1920), 171 Wis. 566 , 177 N. W. 917 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The difficulty of impressing upon the record a true concept of the public sentiment in the county is manifest. Just as the trial judge is in a better position to weigh the testimony of witnesses who appear before him, so is he in a better position to judge of the public sentiment of the county. He is on the ground and in a position to sense, in a way that this court cannot, the true sentiment of the community and to judge much more correctly whether it is such as to prevent a fair trial on the part of the defendants.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.