126 So. 3d 702 - State v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “11sHowever, prosecutors have wide latitude in choosing closing argument tactics. State v. Casey, 99-0023, p. 17 (La.1/26/00), 775 So.2d 1022, 1036 ; [State v.] Jackson, 2008-0286, p. 10-11 [ (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/29/09)], 11 So.3d [524] at 533. Further, a trial court has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing arguments. Casey, supra; State v. Jones, 2010-0018, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/10/10), 51 So.3d 827, 833 . Even in the' case of a prosecutor exceeding the bounds of proper argument, a reviewing court will not reverse a conviction unless thoroughly convinced that the argument influenced the jury and contributed to the verdict. State v. Wiltz, 2008-1441, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/16/09), 28 So.3d 554, 558 ; State v. Harvey, 2008-0217, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/13/09), 12 So.3d 496, 499 . Even where the prosecutor’s statements are improper, a reviewing court should accord credit to the good sense and fairmindedness of the jurors who heard the evidence. Harvey, supra.”

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

2. ““While the prosecution must base its conclusions and deductions in closing argument upon evidence adduced at trial, both the State and defense are entitled to their own conclusions as to what is established by the evidence, and either may press upon the jury any view arising out of the evidence. State v. Sayles, 395 So.2d 695 (La.1981); State v. Everett, 2011-0714 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/13/12) , 96 So.3d 605 , writ denied, 2012-1593, 2012-1610 (La.2/8/13), 108 So.3d 77 .” Id. at p. 15, 126 So.3d at 712 . This court found that the prosecutor’s comments concerning the defense failure to call witnesses to back its argument “merely restated evidence or lack thereof that was presented during trial.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 146 So. 3d 777 - State v. Cushenberry

3. “The argument shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law applicable to the case. The argument shall not appeal to prejudice. ; The state’s rebuttal shall be confined to answering the argument of the defendant.”

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