Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 185 Conn. App. 93 - State v. Papantoniou

185 Conn. App. 93 - State v. Papantoniou’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
October 2025
most recently cited

18 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Berger v. United States · State v. Golding · Henderson v. Brown · State v. Williams · State v. Geisler

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

  1. “[P]rosecutorial [impropriety] of a constitutional magnitude can occur in the course of closing arguments.... When making closing arguments to the jury, [however] [c]ounsel must be allowed a generous latitude in argument, as the limits of legitimate argument and fair comment cannot be determined precisely by rule and line, and something must be allowed for the zeal of counsel in the heat of argument.... Thus, as the state's advocate, a prosecutor may argue the state's case forcefully, [provided the argument is] fair and based upon the facts in evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “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.... The two steps of [our] analysis are separate and distinct, and we may reject the claim if we conclude that the defendant has failed to establish either prong.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a defendant who fails to preserve claims of prosecutorial [impropriety] need not seek to prevail under the specific requirements of [ Golding ], and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four-pronged Golding test.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.