49 Wis. 2d 683 - Nicholas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 75 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The fact of prior convictions and the number thereof is relevant evidence because the law in Wisconsin presumes that one who has been convicted of a crime is less likely to be a truthful witness than one who has not been convicted. . . . This presumption obtains in both civil and criminal litigation.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Seefeldt · State v. Gary M.B.

2. ““ Tn Zillmer v. State (1968), 39 Wis. 2d 607, 616 , 159 N. W. 2d 669 , this court reiterated with approval the already well-established rule that a new trial may be based on an admission of perjury only if the facts in the affidavit are corroborated by other newly discovered evidence. Here the defendant is unable to point to any “other newly discovered evidence” which would corroborate the affidavit of William Ashford. “ ‘We conclude that recanting affidavits, standing alone, are of no legal significance.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 65 Wis. 2d 683 - Rohl v. State · 64 Wis. 2d 443 - Rohl v. State

3. ““The state has well observed that the recommendation of La Vigne should not be made a mandatory requirement because (1) it is often difficult to tell in advance of filing the information whether to charge the defendant as the principal or under this section as a party to the crime; (2) the statute itself does not require that a defendant in a position such as the instant defendant, be specifically charged with violation of this section; and finally, (3) that even if it was error for the information not to contain reference to sec. 939.05, Stats., it was harmless error for the defendant could not have been prejudiced by a failure to narrow this complaint down to this specific statutory reference. “In all likelihood, the district attorney knew of the facts surrounding this incident prior to the filing of the information so presumably it was known that defendant could be charged under the party-to-a-erime action. This should have been done. However, failure to do so, in the absence of other circumstances showing a detrimental effect on the defendant, would appear to be harmless error. The defendant knew what he was charged with and there is nothing in the record to indicate that had this statute been specifically referred to in the information, his trial strategy would have been any dif ferent. The state’s burden of proof is still the same in either event.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 61 Wis. 2d 262 - Hardison v. State