96 Wis. 2d 290 - Pohl v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““ * “Errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred.” Hart v. State, 75 Wis.2d 371 , 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977). In Wold v. State, 57 Wis.2d 344, 356 , 204 N.W.2d 482 (1973), a case involving improperly admitted evidence, the court stated: “ ‘ “The test of harmless error is not whether some harm has resulted, but, rather, whether the appellate court in its independent determination can conclude there is sufficient evidence, other than and uninfluenced by the inadmissible evidence, which would convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. See Harrington v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 250 , 89 Sup. Ct. 1726, 23 L. Ed.2d 284 . This test is based on reasonable probabilities.” “ ‘Other formulations of the harmless error test would require reviewing courts to set aside the verdict and judgment unless sure that error did not influence the jury or had but only slight effect. Kelly v. State, 75 Wis.2d 303 , 317 n. 3, 249 N.W.2d 800 (1977) and concurring opinion at 321.’ Id. at 308 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 139 Wis. 2d 45 - State v. Grant · 99 Wis. 2d 269 - Barrera v. State

2. “require[] severance of defendants in all instances in which law enforcement authorities possess a statement by a codefendant implicating another defendant. We do not believe such an argument would be viable. The legislative committee note indicates that the statute is intended to provide a mechanism to insure compliance with Bruton. As we have stated, compliance may be had with Bruton by effectively excising any reference implicating a codefendant and by instructing the jury as to the limited purpose for which the evidence is admitted. If this is done, the statement no longer 'implicates another defendant' and therefore does not fall within the prohibition of the statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Raymond L. Nieves

3. ““While this court has held that a defendant is entitled to a meaningful right of cross-examination, we have refused to rule that a witness’ claimed inability to recall making a statement is a denial of ‘full and effective’ or ‘meaningful’ cross-examination.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 102 Wis. 2d 343 - Robinson v. State