Knix v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Most constitutionally guaranteed procedural rights stand alone, without any constitutionally guaranteed equal-but-opposite corollary. For example, a criminal defendant enjoys the right to be, tried by a jury but has no opposing constitutional right to be tried before a judge alone.... In the absence of a clear waiver of the right to a trial by jury, the right [will] be preserved by ordering the defendant to stand trial before a jury[.] [Even with regard to] the constitutionally protected right to counsel, whose corollary is the constitutionally protected right to self-representation[,] ... the right to counsel is clearly dominant, and [the] right to self-representation clearly subordinate. A criminal defendant who does not affirmatively and expressly waive the right to counsel must proceed with legal representation .... [But with regard to the] right to testify and its corollary, the right to silence ... [, b]oth are fundamental and constitutionally enshrined. Neither has been established as clearly dominant over the other; they are equally vital.... [Moreover,] the two rights are mutually exclusive. A defendant cannot simultaneously exercise the right to testify and [the right] to remain silent. The exercise of one right necessarily entails a relinquishment of the other. Given the ... relationship of these corollary rights, a rule actually requiring an on-record, voluntary waiver of the right to testify leads to a profound conundrum: what is to be done in the case of a defen”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zemljich v. Municipality of Anchorage · Mute v. State

2. “(1) to defraud five or more persons or to obtain property or services from five or more persons by false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise ...;. Or (2) to defraud one or more persons of $10,000 or to obtain $10,000 or more from one or more persons by false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise ...”

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

3. “... unmistakably refers to purposive conduct-a scheme-that is intended to achieve a specific result-a fraud. The notion of intentional conduct is thus intrinsic in the ordinary meaning of the term”

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