Leach v. Kolb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[M]isjoinder ... rise[s] to the level of a constitutional violation only if it results in prejudice so great as to deny a defendant his ... right to a fair triai.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Watkins v. R · Harvard P. Watkins v. Kenneth R. Morgan

2. ““Leach’s initial contention is that, given Wisconsin’s statutory scheme for trying the issues of guilt and insanity in separate stages of the criminal trial when pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect are entered, trial courts in Wisconsin may not direct a verdict on the question of insanity because to do so would violate the constitutional prohibition against directing verdicts in criminal cases. [Citation.] The petitioner is correct in his assertion that in criminal trials, ‘ “a trial judge is prohibited from entering a judgment of conviction or directing the jury to come forward with such a verdict . . . regardless of how overwhelmingly the evidence may point in that direction.” ’ [Citations.] ‘This rule stems from the Sixth Amendment’s clear command to afford jury trials in serious criminal cases.’ [Citation.] Thus, a criminal defendant ‘has an absolute right to a jury determination of all essential elements of the offense [charged in the indictment].’ [Citations.] “The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, has made clear that insanity is an affirmative defense and that a finding of insanity is dispositive only on the question of whether the accused is to be held criminally responsible for committing the charged offense; it is not determinative of whether the elements of the offense, and thus the criminal conduct itself, have been established. [Citations.] “ ‘[T]he affirmative defense [of insanity] is of an entirely different nature from affi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 106 Cal. App. 4th 1071 - People v. Ceja

3. “Crimes may be charged and tried together .if they “are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.” Section 971.12(1), Stats.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Biskup v. McCaughtry