State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 19 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It further appears from the record that the sheriff was not sworn as a bailiff, and was not in any manner in charge of the jury, which was in the custody of two bailiffs duly sworn for that purpose. “The weight of authority with reference to the effect of the unauthorized separation of a jury in a criminal case, other than misdemeanor, after submission and before agreement, is stated in a careful case note in 34 A. L. R. p. 1115, at page 1215, in the following language: “ Tn a prosecution for a felony, the courts, generally, are agreed that where the jury has separated while deliberating on their verdict, under such circumstances as to make it reasonably appear that they might have been tampered with, prejudice is presumed, and the burden of showing that the defendant was not, in fact, prejudiced thereby, is on the prosecution. Unless the state shows non-injury to the defendant, a new trial will be ordered.’ The rule in this state was established by the case of State v. Church (1895) 7 S. D. 289, 64 N. W. 152, 153 , as follows: “ ‘We believe the true and only safe rule to be that, where the separation is such that one or more of the jurors might have been improperly influenced by others, and there is nothing reliable to show that such influence has not been exercised to the prejudice of the accused, the verdict shall be vacated, and the case be retried.’ “We think the rule announced in State v. Church is not substantially different from the general rule as above set out. The”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 37 Wash. 2d 356 - State v. Amundsen

2. “"This court did not hold, nor intend to hold, in the Wilcox Case, that the exact words of the instruction there referred to, refusal of which was held error, must be given in every case without change or amendment. It is the rule in this jurisdiction that it does not constitute prejudicial error to refuse a requested instruction, if the substance of the law embraced in the request is fully and fairly covered by the court elsewhere in the instructions."”

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