Erazo v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 62 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Yesterday I introduced a photo into evidence which was marked Exhibit No. 66. I know most of you didn’t want to look at it. I didn’t want to offend you in any way and I can understand why you didn’t want to look at it. Believe me, I understand, but I want to remind you of what we talked about on voire dire. I believe I said at the beginning or asked who of you watched those T.V. shows like The Practice and Law and Order. I told you that we’re not here to entertain you. This whole thing is far more serious than that. The reason that was important is that I knew when I introduced that photograph that you would be asked to look at it so you can appreciate just how serious this is and far reaching and devastating an effect this defendant’s crime has had. When he murdered Kendy Palma, he ended her life. He also ended what was a normal healthy pregnancy and what should have resulted in a beautiful child. That’s a very serious thing and he deserves to pay a serious penalty for it. His actions are final. They cannot be changed, but they can be punished in a just way. Ladies and gentlemen, I’m not asking you for a number. When you go back there and deliberate, I’m going to ask you for a word and that word is life because that’s what this defendant deserves. Thank you.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Erazo v. State

2. “Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is not worth the problems that its admission may cause. The issue is whether the search for truth will be helped or hindered by the interjection of distracting, confusing, or emotionally charged evidence. In making this determination, the [trial] court must assess the probative value of the prof-erred item as well as the harmful consequences specified in Rule 403 that might flow from its admission.”

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

3. “[d]eciding what punishment to assess is a normative process, not intrinsically factbound.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Beham v. State