Wilwording v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ . . .In Paragraph 14 of his motion the prisoner gave as his excuse for not previously raising the new grounds that his previously appointed attorneys (three respected members of the bar) ‘did not investigate the case, and the prosecuting attorney used his evidence as the truth when he knew same not to be the truth.’ Neither the conclusory allegation that previously appointed counsel did not ‘investigate the case’ nor the allusion to the prosecuting attorney constitutes a valid reason why the new grounds could not have been raised by the prisoner in the prior motion. The prisoner knew whether the evidence introduced against him at the trial constituted perjury, etc. and counsel appointed to represent the prisoner on his first 27.-26 petition had the benefit of the transcript of the testimony given at the trial which resulted in the conviction. ‘[N]o reason is alleged why appellant and his attorney[s] could not have amended the original motion to assert these new grounds, by adding them to the [several] grounds alleged in the prior motion. Appellant makes no allegation which, if established by proof, would authorize a finding that he could not previously have presented these new grounds. It is clear that under the rule the additional grounds now sought to be presented could and should have been presented and asserted at the time of the filing and hearing of the first motion. Johnson v. State, Mo.Sup., 472 S.W.2d 433 ; Caffey v. State, Mo.Sup., 467 S.W.2d 857 .' Nolan v. State”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilwording v. Swenson