43 Mich. App. 394 - People v. Severance’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The rule is now firmly established that the prosecution may not use at trial the fact that a defendant exercised his privilege of silence in face of accusation, for such would penalize the defendant for exercising the privilege. People v. Jablonski, 38 Mich.App. 33 , 195 N.W.2d 777 (1972). . . . “Admission of such testimony is reversible error unless we can say that it is harmless error under the ruling in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), reh. den. 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967). “In People v. Jablonski, 38 Mich.App. 33, 38-39 , 195 N.W.2d 777, 780 (1972), our Court stated: “ ‘The admission of such testimony obviously was error. ... It would appear that the better rule is that there is absolutely no probative value in eliciting that the defendants were informed of their rights unless the prosecutor intends to offer a confession or statement made by the defendants. Since there is a potential prejudicial effect even from the mere mention of the rights statement, even in the absence of testimony that the defendant wished to exercise those rights, such statements should be excluded.’ ””

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

2. “"Admission of such testimony is reversible error unless we can say that it is harmless error under the ruling in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), reh. den. 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967)."”

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

3. ““The rule is now firmly established that the prosecution may not use at trial the fact that a defendant exercised his privilege of silence in face of accusation, for such would penalize the defendant for exercising the privilege.””

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