102 Conn. App. 748 - State v. JOSE G.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The Court: All right, voir dire. Constancy of accusation. “[State’s Attorney]: Yes. “The Court: As you know as a prosecutor . . . after a victim testifies concerning a specific act of . . . sexual assault, other people to whom she had complained about the sexual assault are allowed to testify. They’re allowed to testify as to what she said about who attacked her and when the attack occurred. “[State’s Attorney]: Yes. “The Court: But that’s it. “[State’s Attorney]: Okay. “The Court: Not a description of the occurrence. “[State’s Attorney]: All right. “The Court: And the reason I’m allowing it is because the last police officer stated in his testimony that the victim had complained to him about a sexual assault and that he referred it to the Norwalk police department. “[State’s Attorney]: Right. “[Defense Counsel]: Actually, Judge, that was the same incident. That’s not a different incident. “[State’s Attorney]: I’m not sure if it’s the same incident or not. If I could voir dire with the witness, we’ll find out. “The Court: Pardon me, let’s find out. “[State’s Attorney]: Okay. “The Court: Yes, that’s why I’m going to have a voir dire. “[State’s Attorney]: Thank you, Judge. “[Defense Counsel]: But the relationship— “The Court: The jury is not present. “[Defense Counsel]: Okay.””

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

2. “To determine whether the defendant was deprived of his due process right to a fair trial, we must determine whether the sum total of [the prosecutor's] improprieties rendered the defendant's [trial] fundamentally unfair, in violation of his right to due process.... The question of whether the defendant has been prejudiced by prosecutorial [impropriety], therefore, depends on whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury's verdict would have been different absent the sum total of the improprieties.... This inquiry is guided by an examination of the following factors [set forth in State v. Williams , supra, 204 Conn. at 540 , 529 A.2d 653 ]: the extent to which the [impropriety] was invited by defense conduct or argument ... the severity of the [impropriety] ... the frequency of the [impropriety] ... the centrality of the [impropriety] to the critical issues in the case ... the strength of the curative measures adopted ... and the strength of the state's case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 32 - State v. Morice W.

3. ““The Court: All right, but [J] cannot go into any specific indications, just that [the defendant] forced [the victim] to have sex; that’s what [the victim] told [J] on the two occasions. “[State’s Attorney]: On the two occasions. “The Court: One was in 2001, and one was three weeks or so before the Stamford Hospital visit? “[State’s Attorney]: Yes. “The Court: All right. Your objection is noted, if you wish. “[Defense Counsel]: Yes, please. Thank you. “The Court: All right. Invite the jury in, please. The reason I’m allowing this in is because of this claim that the testimony [the victim] gave here in court ought to be disbelieved because of the statement she made earlier. “[State’s Attorney]: Yes, Your Honor.””

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