Harvey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A defendant's choice to exercise his right to > allocution is entirely voluntary; he can speak to the court, but he is not required to do so. We do not prescribe limits on what the defendant can or cannot say during allocution. A defendant's statements may be admissible against him in further proceedings, provided they are voluntary. However, if the trial court were to require a defendant to confess to criminal activities in his allocution in return for a more lenient sentence, those statements would amount to "genuine compulsion of testimony” in violation of the right against self-incrimination.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harvey v. Shillinger · Wilson v. State

2. “(c) Sentence.- (1) Imposition.... Before sentence, the court shall also: imposing [[Image here]] (C) Address the defendant personally and determine if the defendant wishes to make a statement and to present any information in mitigation of the sentence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Presbury v. State · Wilson v. State

3. “The origin of a defendant's right to allo-cution-to address the court before having sentence pronounced-lies in English common law. Under early English criminal practice, an accused was not allowed counsel nor was he a competent witness for himself. Allocution provided a convicted defendant the only opportunity to speak for himself, and its omission would generally have required reversal. Annotation, Necessity and Sufficiency of Question to Defendant as to Whether He Has Anything to Say Why Sentence Should Not Be Pronounced Against Him, 96 A.L.R.2d 1292 , 1295 (1964). In the early days of Wyoming jurisprudence, this court did not consider it reversible error if the trial court failed to properly allow the defendant to allocute. Kinsler v. Territory of Wyoming, 1 Wyo. 112 (1873) (Convicted murderer resentenced using procedures in accordance with statutory sentencing provisions). The omission of the court to address the defendant did not require a new trial, but it did require setting aside the judgment in order to allow compliance with the requirement. Keffer v. State, 12 Wyo. 49 , 73 P. 556, 560 (1903).”

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