State v. Ashker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 30 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. That Plihal died either late on June 13, 1985 or early on June 14, 1985 of multiple stab wounds. 2. The position of the knife wounds indicated that there were probably two assailants. 3.' That Petitioner and Novaock were in Delmont the evening of June 13, 1985. 4. That Petitioner and Novaock were in Petitioner’s green pickup truck. 5. That Petitioner’s pickup truck struck a clothesline pole in decedent’s back yard, causing damage to both the truck and the pole. 6. That a ball point pen from Petitioner’s home town of Wayne, Nebraska was found on the ground near the damaged pole and that it could have come from Petitioner’s pickup when it struck the pole. 7. That Petitioner gave conflicting stories as to his whereabouts on the evening of June 13, 1985. 8. That Petitioner’s truck was not damaged in an accident in front of the Laurel, Nebraska liquor store as claimed by Petitioner. 9. That an altercation that Petitioner claimed he was involved in on the evening of June 13, 1985 at a Omaha, Nebraska Burger King occurred on the morning of that day.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ashker v. Leapley

2. “1) Inconsistency:' The statements must be inconsistent. 2) Relevancy: The inconsistency must “relate to a matter of sufficient relevancy that the prosecution’s case will be adversely affected if the inconsistent testimony is allowed to stand.” 3) Compliance with Rule 613 (SDCL §§ 19-14-24 and 19-14-25): The prior statement must, on request, be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel, and “if extrinsic evidence is to be used to prove the prior statement, the witness must be afforded an opportunity to explain or deny it, and the opposing party must have an opportunity to interrogate the witness about it.” 4) Limiting instructions: The trial court “must adequately instruct the jury about the limited purpose for which the prior inconsistent statement is admitted.””

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

3. “A ... witness, ... cannot be impeached by prior inconsistent statements unless his testimony has damaged, rather than failed to support the position of the impeaching party. The reason for this is simple: No possible reason exists to impeach a witness who has not contradicted any of the impeaching party’s evidence, except to bring inadmissible hearsay to the attention of the jury. Impeachment is supposed to cancel out the witness’ testimony. It is only when the witness’ testimony is more damaging than his complete failure to testify would have been that impeachment is useful.”

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