State v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[T]he general prejudicial effect of which was pointed out in State v. Mobley, 369 S.W.2d 576 (Mo.1963), and quoted with approval in State v. Scott [ 459 S.W.2d 321 ], supra [was]: ‘All lawyers and judges know that a jury’s knowledge of prior convictions is, in itself, a most damning thing in the trial of a criminal case. When used for legitimate purposes, the defendant must take his chances on this. But prosecutors should not seize upon such an opportunity to further prejudice the defendant by undue repetition and insinuations, or to convey the idea of guilt by reason of the prior offenses.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Guernsey · State v. Comstock

2. ““It is provided in Section 546.260 that if a defendant becomes a witness in his own behalf he ‘may be contradicted and impeached as any other witness in the case.’ Section 491.050 1 provides that ‘Any person who has been convicted of a criminal offense is, notwithstanding, a competent witness; but the conviction may be proved to affect his credibility, either by the record or by his own cross-examination * * *.’ It is now well settled by the decisions of this court that a defendant who elects to testify in his own behalf may be cross-examined with respect to his former convictions upon the issue as to his credibility as a witness, and that is true notwithstanding the provision in Section 546.260 which limits the cross-examination of a defendant to matters referred to in his examination in chief.””

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