Mitchell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 18 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] prosecuting attorney is a public officer acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. It is his duty to use all fair, honorable, reasonable, and lawful means to secure the conviction of the guilty who are or may be indicted in the courts of his judicial district. He should see that they have a fair and impartial trial and avoid conviction contrary to law. Nothing should tempt him to appeal to prejudice, to pervert the testimony, or make statements to the jury, which, whether true or not, have not been proved.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State · Marshall v. State

2. ““1. Where the defendant does not testify in the case, and where the state, in developing its case in chief, introduces in connection with a confession or admission of the defendant, an exculpatory statement which, if true, would entitle him to an acquittal, the jury should be told that he is entitled to a verdict of not guilty unless such exculpatory statement has been disproved or shown to be false by other evidence in the case. 2. Where the state introduces in evidence the confession of accused, it ' is bound by exculpatory statements contained therein unless they are shown by the evidence to be untrue; but the falsity of such exculpatory statements may be shown by circumstances as well as direct evidence. 3. In order for a statement to come within the category of an exculpatory nature, it must be a tangible, affirmative, defensive, factual matter capable of specific disproof, and not extending to a mere recitation of innocence embroidered in the plea of not guilty.””

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

3. ““To constitute robbery, the force or fear must be employed either to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking. If employed merely as a means of escape, it does not constitute robbery. (§ 792) ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ “The taking of property from the person of another is not robbery, when it clearly appears that the taking was fully completed without his knowledge” (§ 796)”

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