State v. Doctor’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably Kenny v. Wepman (2000), State v. Bettencourt (1999)
32 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Davis v. Alaska · Alford v. United States · The Ottawa · State v. Kasper · State v. Crescenzo
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[o]n a motion for new trial, ‘a trial justice, as he * * * considers the pros and cons of such a motion, acts as a “super juror” or a “[seventh] juror” in that he * * * makes an independent appraisal of the evidence in the light of his * * * charge to the jury. [The trial justice] can weigh the evidence and assess the witnesses’ credibility. He * * * can reject some evidence and draw inferences which are reasonable in view of the testimony and evidence in the record: After he * * * finishes his * * * sifting of the evidence, the trial justice must make a choice. He * * * can * * * follow the route designed for times when he * * * thinks the testimony so evenly balanced that the verdict should not be disturbed, or he * * * can go the way established for those occasions when his * * * “superior judgment” tells him * * * that the verdict is against the preponderance of the evidence and thereby fails to either do justice to the parties or respond to the merits of the controversy. If he * * * determines that the evidence presented an “evenly balanced-reasonable minds could differ” situation, he * * * denies the motion. On the other hand, if [the trial justice] is of the opinion that the verdict is not a proper response to the evidence, he * * * grants the motion.’ ” 713 A.2d 766, 770 (R.I.1998) (quoting State v. Doctor, 690 A.2d 321, 329 (R.I.1997)).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the cross-examiner must be given a reasonable opportunity to explore and to establish any possible bias, prejudice, or ulterior motive that a witness may possess that might affect the witness' testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Peterson“Effective cross-examination is an essential element of the presentation of a full and fair defense and, is guaranteed by both the State and the Federal Constitutions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Peterson
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.