State v. Blasus’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[g]enerally[,] expert testimony does not constitute newly discovered evidence justifying a new trial”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Fosnow · T.M. v. State

2. “Since the earliest days of statehood, this court has consistently held in both criminal and civil cases that bias, state of mind, and inclinations of witnesses, upon whose testimony in part the issue is to be determined, are not collateral or immate rial matters; that cross-examination on the issue of bias or interest is a matter of right; and that its denial or undue circumscription is prejudicial error. See, e.g., State v. Dee, 14 Minn. 35, 37 ( Gil. 27 , 30) (1869); Alward v. Oakes, 63 Minn. 190, 193 , 65 N.W. 270, 271 (1895); [State v.] Elijah, 206 Minn. [619] at 625, 289 N.W. [575] at 579 [1940], In the latter case we quoted with approval the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 692 [ 51 S.Ct. 218, 219 , 75 L.Ed. 624 ] (1931). Prejudice ensues from a denial of the opportunity to place the witness in his proper setting and put the weight of his testimony and his credibility to a test, without which the jury cannot fairly appraise them. * * * To say that prejudice can be established only by showing that the cross-examination, if pursued, would necessarily have brought out facts tending to discredit the testimony in chief, is to deny a substantial right and withdraw one of the safeguards essential to a fair trial. Elijah, 206 Minn, at 625, 289 N.W. at 579. Rule 402, Minn.R.Evid., which provides that relevant evidence is admissible at trial, is identical to its federal counterpart, Fed.R.Evid. 402. Under either, cred”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hunt v. Regents of University

3. “shall not be permitted to * * * be tried or sentenced for any offense if the defendant: (1) lacks sufficient ability to consult with a reasonable degree of rational understanding with defense counsel; or (2) is mentally ill or mentally deficient so as to be incapable of understanding the proceedings or participating in the defense.”

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