People v. Irwin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This testimony was not a part of the res gestae, and was not admissible under the authorities to which reference has been made, nor upon any theory or principle of law with which we are acquainted. From it injury might readily have resulted to the defendant, for it might have been, and probably was, argued therefrom that deceased intended to resort to the courts rather than to force for redress, and therefore did not commence the rencounter in which he lost his life. ’ . . . Such declarations depend for their force upon the veracity of the deceased, or the party .who has been assaulted, are highly prejudicial (State v. Pomeroy, 25 Kan. 350 ), and are regarded as being so grievously injurious that in one case it was held the judgment must be reversed, although no objection was made to the evidence when offered. (People v. Williams, 3 Abb. App. (N. Y.) 600.) There is no analogy between such statements and dying declarations; for the latter, being made in view of immediate death, have all the sanction and solemnity of testimony given under oath before the court and jury. . . . ’ spiracy, and the court seems to have allowed them for that and no other purpose; that is to say, the main fact which they are supposed to explain is the alleged conspiracy, and not the billing. In other words, it is admitted by counsel for respondent, as we understand the matter, that if there was no question of conspiracy in the case, a declaration of deceased that Irwin was making preparations to kill”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 81 Cal. App. 226 - People v. Brown

2. “The court also erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the refusal of the alleged conspirators, who had been placed on the witness stand and declined to testify, should not be considered by the jury in determining the question of guilt or innocence, and that the jury should not presume from such refusal to testify that the testimony, if given, would be against the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Glass