83 Wash. 2d 558 - State v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the case at bench, the defendant was present in the courtroom at all pertinent times throughout the course of the trial, during which there were numerous references in the testimony to “the defendant” and to “Jimmy Hill.” The arresting officer testified that it was “the defendant” whom he observed at the scene of the arrest, that he had ordered “the defendant” to halt, and that it was “the location where the defendant was finally stopped that the Kleenex was found.” The jury verdict was in the form: “We, the Jury . . . , find the defendant [Jimmy Hill] GUILTY ...” Although we do not recommend the omission of specific in-court identification where feasible, we are satisfied that the evidence as it developed in the instant case was adequate to establish the defendant’s identity in connection with the offense for which he stood accused.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Huber · Brooks v. United States

2. “[h]is testimony may or may not have influenced the jury in arriving at a verdict. In any event, he was entitled by constitutional and statutory provision to give his version of the events if he wished. The trial court's unfortunate ruling, which would have saddled the defendant's testimony with the taint of the two reversed convictions, prejudicially deprived him of a free and voluntary choice in the matter and literally compelled him to remain silent. He, therefore, should be entitled to a new trial.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Robinson · State v. West

3. “In our state, the framers of our constitution seemingly were not content to leave the preservation of the right to testify in one's own behalf up to the legislature, for, after providing in article 1, section 9, that an accused could not be compelled to give evidence against himself, they went on in article 1, section 22 — now amendment 10 — and provided: In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right ... to testify in his own behalf, ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 139 Wash. 2d 37 - State v. West · State v. West