89 Wis. 2d 404 - Hammill v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 33 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Control of the voir dire examination rests primarily with the trial court. Voir dire 'is conducted under the supervision of the court, and a great deal must, of necessity, be left to its sound discretion.’ Conners v. United States, 158 U.S. 408, 413 (1895) ; Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 527-28 ; Aldridge v. United States, 283 U.S. 308, 310 (1931). The trial court has broad discretion as to the form and number of questions to be asked. The exercise of this discretion and the court’s restriction upon inquiries, however, are subject to ‘the essential demands of fairness.’ Aldridge, supra at 310 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 108 Wis. 2d 392 - State v. Chosa · 156 Wis. 2d 74 - State v. Moats

2. ““Under the United States constitution a criminal defendant in a state court is guaranteed an impartial jury by the Sixth Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Principles of due process also guarantee a defendant a fair trial by a panel of impartial jurors. In Wisconsin a defendant is entitled to a trial by an impartial jury as a matter of state constitutional law under sec. 7, art. I of the Wisconsin Constitution.” 3 Hammill v. State, 89 Wis. 2d 404, 407 , 278 N.W.2d 821 (1979).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 108 Wis. 2d 291 - State v. Lehman · 108 Wis. 2d 392 - State v. Chosa

3. ““ARTICLE VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. “ARTICLE XIV. Section 1. . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 108 Wis. 2d 291 - State v. Lehman