Warren v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As a general rule, a defendant on trial for a felony must be present throughout the trial, and is not permitted to waive his presence. This requirement is for the benefit of the defendant that he may be accorded his constitutional and statutory rights, and it is said to be against public policy, and contrary to the dictates of humanity, to permit an accused to waive the advantage his presence may afford him. There are, however, exceptions to the literal enforcement of his right under all conditions. Thus it is generally held that, where the jury during a criminal case is permitted to view the scene of the crime, although such view is a part of the trial, and is the taking of evidence, the presence of defendant is not essential. Many authorities are cited in support of this exception. A great many of the states hold in effect that in a case not capital, if the defendant has been released on bail, and absconds, or is voluntarily absent after his arraignment and plea, the trial may proceed, and the verdict be received in his absence. Numerous authorities also hold that a temporary absence from the courtroom for a short time during the trial, even in a capital case, is not such an invasion of a defendant's rights as to be ground for a reversal. Several of the following cases are very similar to this case: 16 C.J. 817, § 2071; People v. Bush, 68 Cal. 623 , 10 P. 169 ; People v. Miller, 33 Cal. 99 ; Van Houtan [Van Houton] v. People. 22 Colo. 53 , 43 P. 137 , State v. Rubaka, 82 Co”

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

2. ““In regard to proof of former conviction under the Habitual Criminal Act, 21 O. S. (1951) § 51, the identity of name of .the defendant and the person previously convicted is prima facie evidence of identity of person, and, in the absence of rebutting testimony, supports a finding of such identity. This will leave the question of identity to be determined by the jury, after a proper instruction has been given, upon a consideration of all surrounding facts and circumstances, such as commonness or unusualness of the name, the character of the former crime or crimes, and the place of its commission:””

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

3. “One step further could simplify the trial even more, i.e., submit the accused person to trial prior to his apprehension in true `absentia' form.”

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