State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There is no equal protection issue here. Appellant was not denied the transcript because he was indigent. See State v. Ambus, 522 S.W.2d 306, 310 (Mo. App. 1975). He was furnished portions of the transcript for which he had expressed a particular interest, but was not furnished those portions which could not be prepared within the time available. Those portions would not have been "available for a price" to a non-indigent. The concept of equal protection, although greatly expanded in recent years, does not require the granting to an indigent accused rights or privileges not available to the non-indigent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 481 So. 2d 312 - Ruffin v. State

2. “Consistency in the verdict is not necessary. Each count in an indictment is regarded as if it was [sic] a separate indictment . [[Image here]] That the verdict may have been the result of compromise, or of a mistake on the part of the jury, is possible. But verdicts cannot be upset by speculation or inquiry into such matters.”

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