State v. Rodriguez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““To decide whether the correction of the verdict form from not guilty to guilty violated Defendant’s constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy, we must first determine whether the trial judge erred in reassembling the jury once he announced he was going to discharge the jury. As the Court of Appeals pointed out in its opinion, ‘[wjhether a trial court may reassemble a discharged jury to amend, clarify, or correct a verdict is the subject of a surprising number of cases throughout the country.’ [State v.] Rodriguez, 2004-NMCA-125 , ¶ 7, 136 N.M. 494 , 100 P.3d 200 . Some states categorically preclude the reassembly of a jury to correct a verdict once the trial judge announces his or her intent to discharge the jury. See, e.g., West v. State, 228 Ind. 431 , 92 N.E.2d 852, 855 (1950). Other states analyze whether the jury was discharged by investigating whether the jury actually left the presence and control of the court. See, e.g., State v. Brandenburg, 38 N.J.Super. 561 , 120 A.2d 59, 61 (Hudson County Ct.1956). In New Mexico, in a case where the jury was called back to the courtroom to correct a verdict one day after they were discharged, we stated that ‘[ajfter a verdict has been received and entered upon the minutes and the jury has been dismissed, they have not the power to reassemble and alter their verdict.’ Murry v. Belmore, 21 N.M. 313, 319 , 154 P. 705, 707 (1916). Despite this statement, we refused to set aside the corrected verdict because appellant’s att”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 117 So. 3d 921 - T.D.M. v. State of Alabama.

2. “the trial judge or either party could have made a more specific statement that the jurors, while leaving the jury box . . . , alerted the court that a verdict had been incorrectly reported. Or, the trial judge or either party could have made a more specific statement that no juror had left the courtroom, jury room, or entered an area occupied by the general public. More specific statements would have made clear that the jury room was immediately adjacent to the courtroom and that the jurors were not entering the spectator section of the courtroom, and any disagreement by the parties could have been recorded. Alternatively, each juror could have been asked on the record whether he or she had left the courtroom or entered an area occupied by members of the general public and, if so, whether the juror or any member of the general public commented about the jury verdict.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Benjamin v. People

3. “once a juror has left the presence and control of the court into an area occupied by the general public”

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