Bailey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “"Further, our decision that the error in Shaw could not be deemed harmless, despite a failure to show prejudice, was made in the context of the defendant's right to be present when the verdict was rendered by a jury. Clearly, a criminal defendant has an interest and right to be present during a non-jury trial when his `absence could, under some set of circumstances, be harmful.' Polizzi v. United States , 9th Cir., 550 F.2d 1133 , 1138 (1976). See Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). In addition, where the verdict is rendered by a letter opinion in a non-jury trial, the defendant's interest in being present at that time is not so great that the Superior Court Criminal Rule 52 harmless standard could not be applied. See, Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 22 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 827 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 709 (1967). "Even if Rule 43 required the defendant's presence in this case, `actual prejudice should be conceivable before the presumption of prejudice (could) prevails. . . .' Jacobs v. State , Del.Supr., 418 A.2d 988 , 989 (1980). We cannot think of any manner in which the defendant in this case could have been prejudiced, nor does the defendant allege that the return of the verdict by letter opinion without his presence prejudiced his case. In addition, in a non-jury trial, we can think of no purpose to be served by having a defendant, *Page 447 already in custody, taken to court for the sole purpose of having a letter opinion verdict r”

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

2. “A defendant shall be present at his arraignment, at- the time of his plea, at every stage of his trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as provided by SDCL §§ 23A-39-2 and 23A-39-3.”

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