Anthony v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On December 4, 2009, Anthony was arrested for selling approximately 3.06 grams of cocaine to Arnold Brown, a confidential informant. The drug sale between Anthony and Brown took place on June 29, 2007. Prior to the drug buy, Brown approached Agent Christopher Scott with the Meridian Police Department and the East Mississippi Task Force about working with the task force as a CL Brown contacted an individual known as “Pee Wee” who had cocaine he was willing to sell. Agent Scott began the operation to buy drugs through Brown from Pee Wee based on Brown’s information. Brown called Pee Wee on the orders of Agent Scott and set up a meeting place for the drug buy. Pee Wee agreed to meet Brown on 16th Avenue and 16th Street in Meridian, Mississippi. Agent Scott testified that he did not record the conversation, but the phone call was made from their briefing location. At the trial, Brown testified that the man he knew as Pee Wee was Anthony. Before the Cl went to the drug-buy location, the task force searched Brown thoroughly to make sure he did not have any weapons or contraband on him. Brown was then issued money from the official task-force fund. The department made copies of the serial numbers of each bill used in the buy. The task force wired Brown with an audio and video device, and he was wired with a transmitter so the surveillance agents could hear Brown during the buy. Brown’s vehicle was searched in its entirety to make sure that no drugs, contraband, or weapons of any typ”

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

2. “(a) he is a member of a cognizable racial group; (b) the non-objecting party exercised peremptory challenges to remove venire members [of a different race from the defendant]; and (c) these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the non-objecting party used that practice to exclude ■ the venire [members] from the petit jury on account of their race.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bobby Lee Allen v. State of Mississippi