State v. Lamar’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “I. The trial court failed to determine that no conflict of interest existed because of the joint representation of the defendants, and the defendants' 6th and 14th amendment rights were thereby violated. II. It was a denial of the defendants' due process rights not to appoint an investigator to assist the defense lawyers in preparing this matter for trial. III. The attorneys should have been permitted to conduct individual voir dire in order to probe more deeply into the jurors' attitudes and backgrounds so that the attorneys could exercise their peremptory challenges more intelligently because of the racial and publicity aspects of this case. IV. The trial court erred in not allowing the defense to present evidence regarding the prior conduct of the law enforcement officials when a prima facie showing of self-defense and protection of others had been made. V. The trial court erred in admitting evidence of prejudicial incidents involving Lonnie Hayes which did not amount to crimes. VI. The court erred in not permitting the defense to confront a key state witness with a prior inconsistent statement, in violation of defendants' 6th amendment rights. VII. Duress and mistake of fact were reasonably supported by the evidence; therefore, it was error not to give the jury instructions on these theories of the case. VIII. It was error not to dismiss this case because of the government's selective or discriminatory prosecution of the defendants.”

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

2. “"Conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justified if a reasonable person would believe that he was compelled to engage in the proscribed conduct by the threat or use of immediate physical force against his person or the person of another which resulted or could result in serious physical injury which a reasonable person in the situation would not have resisted."”

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

3. “"... If A, armed with a gun, threatens B, a taxicab driver, with death unless B drives him to the scene of a robbery planned by A, B is not guilty of the robbery which A commits at the scene, because it is better for society as a whole that B do the lesser harm (aid A in the robbery) than that B's life be lost."”

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