Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is undisputed that the detective’s testimony was false. Although the State presented other evidence of Appellant’s guilt, Appellant’s federal court statement admitting that he had committed the crime was extremely incriminating. The district court’s determination that sufficient evidence existed to convict Appellant absent the federal court statement invaded the province of the jury. It is for the jury rather than for the judge to decide whether a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Baum v. State, 745 P.2d 877 (Wyo.1987); and Stewart v. State, 724 P.2d 439 (Wyo.1986). We hold that under W.R.Cr.P. 34, which allows the district court to grant a new trial in the interest of justice, the district court abused its discretion when, after being confronted with uncontro-verted evidence of the detective’s false testimony, it declined to grant Appellant’s motion for a new trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. State

2. “A delay of almost three months for the new judge to assume charge of a proceeding and to decide motions of the type involved here is neither unexpected nor unreasonably lengthy. United States v. Taylor, 861 F.2d 316 (1st Cir.1988); State v. Finley, 277 S.C. 548 , 290 S.E.2d 808 (1982).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Knox v. State