State v. Nolan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We do not hold that every improper comment or inference is prejudicial. We only hold that when no evidence of a conviction is shown in a trial, and the prosecutor makes reference to or comments in such a manner so that a logical inference is that the defendant has been formerly convicted, such reference or implication constitutes such a serious matter that it rises to the level of prejudice. . . . , we hold that the statements and conduct inferred that defendant had been previously convicted and constitute plain error within Rule 27.20 (c), V.A.M.R. We cannot say that the injection of this inference of a prior conviction was harmless.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Jasper

2. “The prosecuting attorney holds a unique position in our adversary system of criminal justice. He is a government official and clothed with the dignity and prestige of office. His power to persuade is great. His conduct and statements are weighted with prestige. It is his duty to assure that those accused of crime are afforded a fair trial consistent with due process of law. A prosecuting official is required to refrain from conduct engendering prejudice and to avoid injecting into the minds of the jury any matter which would prejudice their minds.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Jasper

3. “In such a posture, when the prosecutor made gesticulations and ‘slammed his file on the table’ and inferred by his comments that the appellant had a prior conviction, this strong implication may well have prejudiced the jury. The comments by the prosecuting attorney logically implied that defendant had prior convictions and could reasonably have implanted in the minds of the jurors the fact that he had previously been convicted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Jasper