State v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 12 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When the prosecutor’s questioning inadvertently elicits a witness’s reference to a polygraph test, there is cause for mistrial if, but only if, the reference to the test raises an inference about the result that substantially prejudices the defendant’s case. Kaminski v. State, [ 63 So.2d 339 (Fla.1952)]; State v. Davis, [ 351 So.2d 771 (La.1977)]; Commonwealth v. Camm, 443 Pa. 253 , 277 A.2d 325 (1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1046 , 92 S.Ct. 1320 , 31 L.Ed.2d 589 (1972). In deciding whether to grant or deny a defendant’s motion for mistrial in such a situation, the trial court must weigh various factors bearing on the substantiality of any resulting prejudice to the defendant. Among other factors, it must determine (1) whether the inference as to the result of the test may be crucial in assessing the witness’s credibility, and (2) whether ‘the witness’s credibility play[s] a vital role in the case.’ People v. Whitfield, 58 Mich.App. 585, 589-90 , 228 N.W.2d 475, 477-78 (1975).””

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

2. “We do not find it necessary to require a mistrial to be automatic upon any mention of a polygraph examination by a witness.”). . Id. at 985-86 . .The State also argues that the inadvertence of the comment makes the comment less prejudicial. It matters little, however, whether the reference .was inadvertent because”

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