Fernandez v. Dufrain’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “[T]he standard for appellate review of an insufficiency claim placed a “very heavy burden” on the appellant. Our inquiry is whether the jury, drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence, may fairly and logically have concluded that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In making this determination, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and construe all permissible inferences in its favor.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 58 F. Supp. 2d 124 - Franza v. Stinson · 78 F. Supp. 2d 260 - Roldan v. Artuz

2. “[Tjhis inquiry does not require a court to ‘ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 78 F. Supp. 2d 260 - Roldan v. Artuz

3. “By necessity, intent must usually be proven by circumstantial evidence.”); Fratarcangelo v. Smith, 792 F.2d 40, 43 (2d Cir.1986) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 162 F. Supp. 2d 204 - Jones v. Duncan