State v. Newman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 18 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. “The prosecution is entitled to show only “the nature and number” of prior convictions, and is not entitled to engage in cross-examination of the defendant with respect to details of the prior crimes. (Citation omitted.) In particular as it affects this case, the prosecutor may not cross-examine with respect to the length of time the defendant was imprisoned, after that period of imprisonment has been fully served and concluded. (Citations omitted.) The error in permitting the relatively simple questions as to how much time he had served in prison was compounded by the further questions put to him to elicit the facts pertaining to his breach of parole and his use of drugs as well as excessive consumption of alcohol during his period of parole. This latter cross-examination could not help but be devastating in the eyes of the jury. It further aggravated the poisonous effect of the improper elaboration upon the prior convictions, the general prejudicial effect of which was pointed out in State v. Mobley, 369 S.W.2d 576 (Mo.1963) and quoted with approval in State v. Scott [ 459 S.W.2d 321 (Mo.1970) ]: All lawyers and judges know that a jury’s knowledge of prior convictions is, in itself, a most damning thing in the trial of a criminal case. When used for legitimate purposes, the defendant must take his chances on this. But prosecutors should not seize upon such an opportunity to further prejudice the defendant by undue repetition and insinuations, or to convey the idea of guilt b”

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

2. ““[T]he general prejudicial effect of which was pointed out in State v. Mobley, 369 S.W.2d 576 (Mo.1963), and quoted with approval in State v. Scott [ 459 S.W.2d 321 ], supra [was]: ‘All lawyers and judges know that a jury’s knowledge of prior convictions is, in itself, a most damning thing in the trial of a criminal case. When used for legitimate purposes, the defendant must take his chances on this. But prosecutors should not seize upon such an opportunity to further prejudice the defendant by undue repetition and insinuations, or to convey the idea of guilt by reason of the prior offenses.’ ””

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