Klock v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “401, the relevance. I'm also basing my decision on the fact that I did not believe the door was opened by the State. Number three, I'm making my decision on the fact that ... I still think 701 and 702 may apply and there should have been a notice given that this person was an expert witness.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zunker v. State · Schultze v. State

2. “Imagine the embarrassment, the humiliation that [the complainant] has had to go through. Every time you think about the excuses the Defendants offered, think about [her], what she's going through, what her parents are going through, what her dad is thinking knowing that his little girl was violated in the worst way.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zunker v. State · Schultze v. State

3. “In addition, the jury saw videotape evidence of [Schultze] engaging in truly barbaric behavior — the sexual assault of an unconscious young woman — by inserting a toilet plunger handle in her vagina and suggesting that Kloek and Zunker force a baseball in her vagina, while he manned the video camera. [Sehultze]’s misconduct was further emphasized by his laughter at the complainant during the assault even when her vagina was burned by a lit cigarette and a screwdriver was inserted in her vagina. During the assault, [Schultze] declared that it was “fucking hilarious.” The jurors saw the videotape [Schultze] took of Hickman shortly before he died. They saw water being poured over his face, his penis being fondled, and his pubic hair being shaved while he lay unconscious. They saw a videotape [Schultze] took on another occasion while he urinated on Hickman while he lay unconscious on the bed. They heard testimony from several neighbors saying that they were afraid to leave their homes. They heard testimony from several policemen who testified that the occupants of the Bahia house were not law-abiding citizens, and they heard from [Schultze]’s bond supervisor who outlined several ways in which [Schultze] had violated the terms of his bond while trial was pending in this first degree felony case. Accordingly, we hold with fair assurance that the trial court’s error in overruling [Sehultze]’s objection to the above argument did not influence the jury and did not affect his substanti”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 622 F. Supp. 2d 439 - Schultze v. Quarterman