People v. Buckey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 2 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defendant also says that the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony from defendant that Don McAvinchey was a liar. It is not proper for a prosecutor to ask a defendant to comment on the credibility of prosecution witnesses since a defen dant’s opinion on such a matter is not probative and credibility determinations are to be made by the trier of fact. Errors in this regard are reviewed under a harmless error analysis. Although the prosecutor’s question required defendant to call McAvinchey a liar, we do not find that defendant was harmed by the error. Defendant maintained during trial that complainant’s mother and Kolberg, McAvinchey’s wife, were bars and that they conspired to have defendant arrested. In light of defendant’s consistent allegations in this regard, we do not find that defendant was harmed by questioning the veracity of one other witness. Moreover, defendant fails to articulate any way in which he was harmed by the prosecutor’s question. Because any undue prejudice could have been cured by a timely objection and curative instruction, defendant’s claim does not warrant reversal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 296 F. Supp. 2d 766 - Knapp v. White

2. “We conclude that the prosecutor’s comments did not in any way deprive defendant of his right to confront the witnesses against him or of his right to be present at his trial. Obviously he did confront these witnesses and was present at his trial. And a reasonable reading of the comments clearly reveals that they were a comment on the credibility of defendant’s testimony. It is well settled that when a defendant waives his right to remain silent and takes the stand in his own defense, he thereby subjects himself to cross-examination as to the credibility of his story. And that issue would involve whether the story had been fabricated. State v. Kimbrough, 109 N.J.Super. 57 , 67, 262 A.2d 232 (App.Div.1970); State v. Burt, 107 N.J.Super. 390 , 393, 258 A.2d 711 (App.Div.1969), aff'd. o.b. 59 N.J. 156 , 279 A.2d 850 (1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047 , 92 S.Ct. 728 , 30 L.Ed.2d 735 (1972). Here the issue of defendant’s credibility was whether his testimony was tailored to that of the testimony of other witnesses, a perfectly proper inquiry.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Agard v. Portuondo

3. “To accept defendants’ argument that they much choose between exercising their right to be present at trial and some other right would be to say that a defendant has the right to fabricate or conform testimony without comment.” People v. Buckey, 424 Mich. 1 , 378 N.W.2d 432, 439 (1985). .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. United States v. Kirt