134 Conn. App. 505 - State v. Rosado’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although mere presence at a crime scene, standing alone, generally is insufficient to infer an agreement, a defendant's knowing and willing participation in a conspiracy nevertheless may be inferred from his presence at critical stages of the conspiracy that could not be explained by happenstance ....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 Conn. App. 440 - State v. Hudson · 182 Conn. App. 756 - State v. Papineau

2. “[T]he existence of a formal agreement between the conspirators need not be proved [however] because [i]t is only in rare instances that conspiracy may be established by proof of an express agreement to unite to accomplish an unlawful purpose .... [T]he requisite agreement or confederation may be inferred from proof of the separate acts of the individuals accused as coconspirators and from the circumstances surrounding the commission of these acts .... Further, [c]onspiracy can seldom be proved by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the activities of the accused persons .... Finally, [b]ecause direct evidence of the accused's state of mind is rarely available ... intent is often inferred from conduct ... and from the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence and the rational inferences drawn therefrom.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 Conn. App. 440 - State v. Hudson

3. “In proving the requisite element of agreement, [i]t is not necessary to establish that the defendant and his coconspirators signed papers, shook hands or uttered the words we have an agreement .... Indeed, [b]ecause of the secret nature of conspiracies, a conviction is usually based on circumstantial evidence.... [A] conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 Conn. App. 176 - State v. Washington