State v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although the defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor's statements at the time of her summation and rebuttal, we may still review these claims. [I]n cases involving incidents of prosecutorial [impropriety] that were not objected to at trial ... it is unnecessary for the defendant to seek to prevail under the specific requirements of State v. Golding , 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four-pronged Golding test.... The object of the inquiry before a reviewing court in claims involving prosecutorial [impropriety], therefore, is always and only the fairness of the entire trial, and not the specific incidents of [impropriety] themselves. Application of the ... factors [in State v. Williams , supra, 204 Conn. at 540 , 529 A.2d 653 ] provides for such an analysis, and the specific Golding test, therefore, is superfluous.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 32 - State v. Morice W.

2. “[The] burden properly lies with the defendant to prove substantial prejudice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 32 - State v. Morice W.

3. “it was confined to only a portion of the closing argument”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 32 - State v. Morice W.