Billie v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defendant concedes that this case is distinguishable from the cited authorities. Here he is requesting that the proceedings in a third party’s trial be transcribed while in the cases cited the appellants sought transcription of their own prior mistrial. The defendant contends this is a distinction without a difference, even though we do not know if the defendant was even mentioned in the testimony at the co-defendant’s trial. We do not know if the testimony in that trial was consistent or inconsistent with the defendant’s present position. Additionally, we note that the request in our present case is much broader than that approved in the modified opinion in Billie . Here the defendant requests a transcription of the entire trial proceedings, whereas in Billie the court held that the Defendant need only be furnished with a transcription of the testimony of the State’s witnesses. Rather than extend and broaden the Billie rule as requested by the defendant, we feel that each request should be treated on a case by case basis. The defendant should set out with specificity that portion of the testimony he desires from any prior proceeding, whether from his own trial or that of a third party, and demonstrate a particular need for a transcription of that evidence. Much weight should be given to the trial judge’s exercise or discretion after conducting a hearing on the particular request.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. McKibbon v. State

2. “If you have caught the witness in a contradiction it is the more clearly shown if the exact words previously used by the witness are brought to the jury’s attention. The effect may extend beyond the bearing on the contradiction on its own subject matter, for the witness may be “broken down” so that he makes other admissions or the jury disbelieves other parts of his testimony. Calling upon the reporter to read such testimony during the examination, however, is rarely a practicable method of confronting the witness with such contradiction.... Even if the trial judge will permit the practice [of “readbacks”], the wisdom of its use is questionable. The jury and the court may grow impatient, and the witness will have been afforded a considerable period of time to think about the matter and be prepared with an explanation or excuse.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. White v. State

3. “We agree with the dissenters that there would be serious doubts about the decision below if it rested on petitioner’s failure to specify how the transcript might have been useful to him. Our cases have consistently recognized the value to a defendant of a transcript of prior proceedings, without requiring a showing of need tailored to the facts of the particular case. As Mr. Justice DOUGLAS makes clear, even in the absence of specific allegations it can ordinarily be assumed that a transcript of a prior mistrial would be valuable to the defendant in at least two ways: as a discovery device in preparation for trial, and as a tool at the trial itself for the impeachment of prosecution witnesses, [footnote omitted]”

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