State v. Boone’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The problem with revealing a prior guilty plea to the jury is that it is too prejudicial, and it "may induce the jury to become reckless in its consideration of the other evidence." State v. Thomson, supra, 278 P.2d [142] at 150 [(Or. 1954)] (Rossman, J., concurring). * * * * * * The devastating effect of disclosure of a prior guilty plea to a jury was discussed by the court in People v. Haycraft, [ 76 Ill. App.2d 149 , 221 N.E.2d 317 (App.Ct. 1966)]. In concluding that any evidence of a withdrawn guilty plea must be excluded, the court observed: It is also difficult to conceive a disclosure more apt to influence a jury than the information that the accused had at one time pled guilty to the commission of the crime with which he stands charged. * * * The human mind is not a blackboard from which unwanted information can be erased at will. We can think of nothing more damaging to an accused in the minds of the jury than the disclosure, however brief, that he had admitted guilt ... and once that disclosure has been made we cannot say that he has received the fair and impartial trial to which he is entitled. 221 N.E.2d at 319 .”

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

2. “Nor is it any answer to argue that the trial courts can insure that evidence of a withdrawn plea is not misused by the jury by issuing cautionary instructions. There are undoubtedly situations in which notwithstanding the most exemplary charge, a juror will find it impossible to disregard such a prejudicial statement. We hold that this is one such situation. In this respect it is well to recall the oft quoted observations of Justice Jackson concurring in Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 453 , 69 S.Ct. 716, 723 , 93 L.Ed.2d 790, 799 , (1949), “The naive assumption that prejudicial effects can be overcome by instructions to the jury ... all practicing lawyers know to be unmitigated fiction.” (Citations omitted.)”

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

3. “He may wish to spare his family the unfavorable publicity attendant upon a trial. He may, for private reasons, prefer to plead guilty rather than have his past paraded before the world. He may fear that a trial may result in a relative or friend being charged as an accessory or in the defendant's being charged with other crimes. [ Boone, supra, 66 N.J. at 50 n. 9, 327 A. 2d 661 (quoting State v. Weekly, 41 Wash. 2d 727, 252 P. 2d 246, 249 (1952) (Donworth, J., dissenting)).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 397 N.J. Super. 367 - State v. BM