Quinn 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As we have often said, a judge at a post-conviction hearing has the responsibility of determining the credibility of the witnesses and his determination will be reversed only when the evidence is without conflict and leads unequivocally to the opposite result. Baker v. State, (1980) - Ind. -, 403 N.E.2d 1069 ; Roberts v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 53 , 324 N.E.2d 265 . The credibility of this witness was a matter for the trial judge to determine. Since the new trial was requested based on newly discovered evidence, the defendant must establish: “(1) that the evidence has been discovered since the trial; (2) that it is material and relevant; (3) that it is not cumulative; (4) that it is not merely impeaching; (5) that it is not privileged or incompetent; (6) that due diligence was used to discover it in time for trial; (7) that the evidence is worthy of credit; (8) that it can be produced upon a retrial of the case; and (9) that it will probably produce a different result.” Emerson v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 399, 407 , 287 N.E.2d 867, 871-2 . It is apparent that the trial judge considered the fact that the witness was the daughter of the appellant and after the passage of five years, was willing to testify at his post-conviction hearing in an attempt to help free him at this time.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Quinn v. Duckworth