People v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “"Under such circumstances, the fact that the defendant on cross-examination acknowledged the prior existence of the statement does not constitute a waiver of the privilege by implication (cf. Wigmore, Evidence, op. cit. ; Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 434; Kaufman v. Rosenshine, 97 App.Div. 514 , 90 N.Y.S. 205 , affd., 183 N.Y. 562 , 76 N.E. 1098 ). The grave error of the prosecutor in demanding production of the statement (People v. Gibson, 218 N.Y. 70, 75 , 112 N.E. 730, 732 ) was made more egregious by the clear and necessarily intended implication in the prosecutor's remarks during summation that the statement contained incriminating information and that it was being improperly withheld because of that fact. This error was fundamental and substantial." 42 App. Div. at 272, 346 N.Y.S.2d at 368 . (emphasis added)”

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

2. ““Under such circumstances, the fact that the defendant on cross-examination acknowledged the prior existence of the statement does not constitute a waiver of the privilege hy implication (cf. Wigmore, Evidence, op. cit.; Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 434; Kaufman v. Rosenshine, 97 App.Div. 514 , 90 N.Y.S. 205 , aff'd., 183 N.Y. 562 , 76 N.E. 1098 ). The grave error of the prosecutor in demanding production of the statement (People v. Gibson, 218 N.Y. 70, 75 , 112 N.E. 730, 732 ) was made more egregious by the clear and necessarily intended implication in the prosecutor’s remarks during summation that the statement contained incriminating information and that it was being improperly withheld because of that fact. This error was fundamental and substantial.” 42 App. Div. at 272, 346 N.Y.S.2d at 368 . (emphasis added)”

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

3. “did not constitute a waiver of the rules governing the competence and admissibility of evidence, and, in particular, those dealing with privileged communications between a defendant and his lawyer;”

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