184 Conn. App. 669 - State v. Tyus’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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. “The court finds that joinder of the cases will clearly advance judicial economy in this case. Virtually all of the witnesses called in one trial would be called in the trial of the other. The physical and the scientific evidence would also be virtually identical. Moreover, joinder would not substantially prejudice the rights of the defendants. Based on the court's review of the statements of the defendants as set forth by the state in its memorandum, it appears that the defenses are not irreconcilable or antagonistic. Both have admitted being with the other on the night in question, and the statements of each do not implicate the other.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 Conn. App. 140 - State v. Armadore

2. “this case is in stark contrast to [ Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming ]. This is not a situation in which the state attempts to elicit testimony from the deceased examiner.... [Stephenson] conducted his own independent examination and reached his own independent conclusions. He is clearly entitled to testify as to those findings because he is available and he made conclusions and he will be cross-examined.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 Conn. App. 140 - State v. Armadore

3. “to be confronted with the analyst who made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 Conn. App. 140 - State v. Armadore