8 E.H. Smith 355 - People v. . Koerner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 83 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(12) Statement by another in presence of party — Admission by acquiescence — ^Silence. A party’s acquiescence in the statement of another, made in his presence, to have the effect of an admission, must exhibit some act of voluntary demeanor or conduct; it must plainly appear that such statement was fully known and understood by the party before any inference can be drawn from his passiveness or silence, and the circumstances must not only be such as afforded him an opportunity to act or speak, but also such as would properly or naturally call for some action or reply from men similarly situated. “(13) Statement made in presence of apparently unconscious defendant— Erroneous admission in evidence — Reversible error. On a trial for murder, in which defect of reason at the time of the act was interposed as a defense, a witness for the prosecution, who had testified as a medical expert that in his opinion the defendant was “shamming”, when apparently unconscious immediately after the homicide, was permitted to testify, over the defendant’s objection, that he stated to a police officer, in the presence of the defendant and while the latter was apparently unconscious, that he ‘didn’t see there was very much the matter with the man; that he was probably faking.’ Ileld, that the evidence was incompetent and improper, being merely hearsay, or the statement of a witness to a third party, unless made under such circumstances as to be binding upon the defendant; that the silence of the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Parulo v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.

2. ““A party’s acquiescence, to have the effect of an admission, must exhibit some act of voluntary demeanor or conduct. When the claimed acquiescence is in the conduct or in the language of others, it must plainly appear that such conduct or language was fully known and fully understood by the party before any inference can be drawn from his passireness or silence. Moreover. the circumstances must not only he such as afforded him an opportunity to act or to speak, but also such as would properly or naturally call for some action or reply from men similarly situated. Declarations or statements made in the presence of a party are received in evidence, not as evidence in themselves, but to ascertain what reply the party to bo affected makes to them. If he is silent when he ought to have denied, the presumption of acquiescence arises. But. it is clearly otherwise when his silence is of a character which does not justify such an inference. Thus, when a person is asleep, or intoxicated, or deaf, or a foreigner unable to understand the language employed, he cannot be prejudiced by statements made by others in his presence. Nor is such silence an assent, unless the statements were such as to properly call for a response. The rule in regard to admissions inferred from acquiescence in the verbal siaiements of others is to be applied with careful discrimination. As was said by Best. (’. J., in Child v. Grace. 2 C. & P. 193: ‘Keally, it is most dangerous evidence.’ It should always be recei”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Parulo v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.

3. ““But acquiescence, to have the effect of an admission, must exhibit some act of the mind, and amount to voluntary demeanor or conduct of the party. And whether it is acquiescence in the conduct or in the language of others, it must plainly appear that such conduct was fully known, or the language fully understood, by the party, before any inference can be drawn from his passiveness or silence. The circumstances, too, must be not only such as afforded him an opportunity to act or to speak, but such, also, as would properly and naturally call for some action or reply from men similarly situated.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Parulo v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.