113 Wash. 2d 772 - State v. Jackman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The mental processes by which individual jurors reached their respective conclusions, their motives in arriving at their verdicts, the effect the evidence may have had upon the jurors or the weight particular jurors may have given to particular evidence, or the jurors’ intentions and beliefs, are all factors inhering in the jury’s process in arriving at its verdict, and, therefore, inhere in the verdict itself, and averments concerning them are inadmissible to impeach the verdict.””

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

2. “(1) will probably change the result of the trial; (2) was discovered since the trial; (3) could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) is material; and (5) is not merely cumulative or impeaching. The absence of any of the five factors is grounds for the denial of a new trial . . . [ 5 ]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 82 Wash. App. 832 - State v. Savaria

3. “testimony. The State appeals. It argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and thus abused its discretion in granting a new trial. Pursuant to CrR 7.6(a)(8), a trial court may grant a new trial when”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 71 Wash. App. 902 - State v. Dawkins