180 Conn. App. 674 - State v. Small’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The principles governing our review of the defendant's claims are well established. In analyzing claims of prosecutorial impropriety, we engage in a two step analytical process.... The two steps are separate and distinct.... We first examine whether prosecutorial impropriety occurred.... Second, if an impropriety exists , we then examine whether it deprived the defendant of his due process right to a fair trial.... In other words, an impropriety is an impropriety, regardless of its ultimate effect on the fairness of the trial. Whether that impropriety was harmful and thus caused or contributed to a due process violation involves a separate and distinct inquiry.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 187 Conn. App. 350 - State v. Santiago

2. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded by the trial court if the court determines that the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs its probative value.... Of course, [a]ll adverse evidence is damaging to one's case, but it is inadmissible only if it creates undue prejudice so that it threatens an injustice were it to be admitted.... The test for determining whether evidence is unduly prejudicial is not whether it is damaging to the defendant but whether it will improperly arouse the emotions of the jury.... Reversal is required only whe[n] an abuse of discretion is manifest or whe[n] injustice appears to have been done.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 187 Conn. App. 661 - State v. Berrios

3. “A prosecutor employs the prosecutor's fallacy by equating random match probability with source probability in relation to DNA evidence. Random match probability and source probability are distinguishable. The prosecutor's fallacy is the assumption that the random match probability is the same as the probability that the defendant was not the source of the DNA sample.... Random match probability is the probability a member of the general population would share the same DNA with the defendant.... Source probability is the probability that someone other than the defendant is the source of the DNA found at the crime scene.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 Conn. App. 563 - State v. Brett B.