James v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

68 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In order to rise to the level of fundamental error, the error must constitute a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, and the harm or potential for harm therefrom must be substantial and apparent.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Isom v. State · Harris v. State

2. “possible persuasive effect on the jury's decision.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Michael Hickingbottom v. State of Indiana · Owens v. State

3. “In Indiana, a criminal defendant is not constitutionally entitled, at public expense, to any type or number of expert witnesses he desires to support his case. Kennedy v. State (1991), Ind., 578 N.E.2d 633, 640 , cert. denied 503 U.S. 921 , 112 S.Ct. 1299 , 117 L.Ed.2d 521 [1992]. A defendant who requests funds for an expert witness has the burden of demonstrating the need for that expert. Id. The appointment of experts is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and only an abuse of that discretion will result in a reversal, but a trial court must provide a defendant access to experts where it is clear that prejudice will otherwise result. Id. Issues which the trial court should consider in determining whether a defendant is entitled to funds for an expert include (1) whether defense counsel already possesses the skills to cross-examine the expert adequately or could prepare to do so by studying published writings, Id.; (2) whether the purpose of the expert is exploratory only, Hough v. State (1990), Ind., 560 N.E.2d 511, 516 ; and (3) whether the nature of the expert testimony involves precise physical measurements and chemical testing, the results of which were not subject to dispute. Schultz v. State (1986), Ind., 497 N.E.2d 531, 533-34 . In cases where a defendant faces the death penalty, we also have held that the failure to allow the defendant appropriate resources to retain an expert who would give an opinion concerning the statutory mitigator, may require rev”

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