Keser v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. The evidence has come to his knowledge since the trial; 2. It was not owing to the want of due diligence that it did not come sooner; 3. The evidence is so material that it would probably produce a different verdict; and 4. The evidence is not cumulative.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barnes v. State · Taul v. State

2. “[a] court may deny a motion for new trial without a hearing when all that is necessary for disposition is already on the record. " Id. at 389 (emphasis added). A hearing becomes necessary under Best when disposition of a motion for new trial cannot be made from the record. So it remains unexplained by the majority how an allegation of perjury can be examined simply by reference to a record. In this case, the trial judge seemed quite reassured that a principal prosecution witness had not perjured herself after both the prosecutor [2] and the prosecution witness, Wanda Hammond, simply reassured him that there had been no perjury. The trial judge then thought it unnecessary to hear live testimony from Wanda Hammond's sister-in-law who had signed an affidavit claiming Wanda Hammond lied at trial. This is adjudication in the face of ignorance. "A standard should be established for the circumstance * * *, that a court is not required to grant a new trial on affidavit evidence, but when there is reasonable evidence of material perjury, the trial court should hold an evidentiary hearing.”

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

3. “There is a difference between evidence which merely goes to credibility or impeaches a witness by calling his credibility into question and evidence which is offered to show an "eyewitness" to a crime gave false identification testimony,. The evidence offered by appellant in this case was impeaching; it also falls into the latter category, as it was offered to show that Allan, Franklin, the only witness who claimed to see. defendant commit the crime, was not present at the seene of the erime. Unlike the impeachment evidence offered in Grable v. State [, 664 P.2d 531 (Wyo.1983) ] and Salas v. State, [ 561 P.2d 238 (Wyo.1977) ] this evidence is so material that it would probably produce a different verdict. Thus, the district court was not correct in ruling that appellant's motion and affidavits failed to support any ground upon which & new trial may be granted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. James Daryl Emerson v. State