State v. Warsop’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “For you to find the defendant guilty of Bribery of the witness as charged in count 2, the state must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the crime: 1. The defendant did intimidate or threaten [the victim]. 2. The defendant intended to keep [the victim] from truthfully reporting to a law enforcement officer or any agency of government that is responsible for enforcing criminal laws information relating to the commission or possible commission of a felony offense; 3. This happened in New Mexico on or about the 3rd day of October, 1997.”

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

2. ““[T]o retaliate” does not connote some retributive physical violence. Rather, it connotes the simple concept of “pay back.” The [victim], by his action, had upset [the defendant]. By threatening the [victim, the defendant] could perhaps upset him as well, thereby fully accomplishing the “pay back” that is the essence of retaliation,”

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