Ramon v. State’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. “However, as the court of appeals below found, the subject matter of the prosecutor’s testimony in this case was not of great consequence to the outcome of the case. ... [T]he trial court’s instruction to disregard was sufficient to cure the error in allowing the prosecutor to testify in this case. The prosecutor’s reference to Dr. Hainley during closing argument could be interpreted as a reference to Dr. Hainley’s testimony when he was recalled, rather than to the prosecutor’s own testimony. It is a well-accepted principle that the admission of improper evidence will not require reversal if the same facts are proved by “other and proper” testimony. Finally, [we consider] the likelihood that appellant would have been convicted absent the misconduct. The evidence against appellant included eyewitness identification placing him at the scene of the crime.... DNA evidence placed appellant’s sperm on one of the victim’s bed sheets, and his palm prints were found on the victim’s headboard.... In this case, the fact that appellant’s sperm was present on the victim’s sheets was sufficient to place him at the scene, supporting the eyewitness’ [sic] statement. Given the strength of the evidence against appellant, the court’s instruction to the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s testimony, and the tangential nature of that testimony, we do not find an abuse of discretion in the trial court’s failure to declare a mistrial....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Ramon v. Quarterman

2. “1) severity of the misconduct (the magnitude of the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s remarks); 2) measures adopted to cure the misconduct (the efficacy of any cautionary instruction by the judge); and 3) the certainty of conviction absent the misconduct (the strength of the evidence supporting the conviction).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Searcy v. State