State v. Webb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 3 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The indictment, when compared with the statute, is found wanting in a material charge set forth in the Criminal Code, in its definition of perjury, which is declared to be ‘ a false statement, either written or verbal, deliberately and willfully made, ’ etc. Pasch. Dig. art. 1909. The indictment omitted to charge the defendant with having deliberately and willfully sworn falsely. It is true the district attorney, in framing the indictment, uses an abundance of expletives, such as ‘ willfully, unlawfully, knowingly, corruptly, and felo-niously did commit willful and corrupt perjury, ’ and that the accused did « willfully, knowingly, corruptly, and falsely state under oath, ’ and that the accused ‘ did then and there, upon the trial of said case, unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, and feloniously commit willful and corrupt perjury. ’ But in all the charges quoted the short and simple statement required by the Code is omitted. There is no charge that the false statement was ‘ deliberately and willfully made. ’ We are left to inference in ascertaining from the indictment that the accused is charged with the crime of perjury as defined in the Code. If the definition, and material facts comprised in the definition, as set forth in the statute, be omitted in any one material circumstance, the jurisdiction will be bad. 1 Archb. Crim. Pr. & PI. 282, and American notes. An indictment which describes the offense as having been done feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously will not be go”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Kelsey