Sanchez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the case of the erroneous admission of evidence, we have said that the appellate court should consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case, the jury instructions, the State’s theory and any defensive theories, closing arguments, voir dire, and whether the State emphasized the error. We believe these same general factors are relevant considerations in determining the harm from being denied a proper question to the venire.”

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

2. “reviewing courts should assess the potential harm of the State’s improper commitment questioning by focusing upon whether a biased juror — one who had explicitly or implicitly promised to prejudge some aspect of the case because of the State’s improper questioning- — actually sat on the jury. The ultimate harm question is: was the defendant tried by an impartial jury, or, conversely, was the jury or any specific juror ‘poisoned’ by the State’s improper commitment questions on a legal issue or fact that was important to the determination of the verdict or sentence?”

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

3. “(1) elicit information that would establish a basis for a challenge for cause because the venireman is legally disqualified from serving or is biased or prejudiced for or against one of the parties or some aspect of relevant law; (2) facilitate the intelligent use of peremptory challenges that may be “exercised without a reason stated, without inquiry and without being subject to the court’s control”; and (3) indoctrinate the juror on the party’s theory of the case and to establish rapport with the prospective jury members.”

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