State v. Ferguson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 76 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To prevail on a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to present impeachment evidence, movant must show that the failure was outside the realm of trial strategy and that the evidence would have presented a viable defense. Movant must show specific discrepancies that could have been pointed out through preparation; otherwise the court is merely speculating as to prejudice .... This Court does not believe the failure of defense counsel to present evidence regarding the order of protection proceeding had an impact on the outcome of the case. This petition does not state if or when movant allegedly moved out of the dwelling, contains no assertions relevant to whether he was residing in the dwelling in July 1998, does not contain any evidence inconsistent with [Ms. Brooks’s] statement that she reported the conduct when she found out about it and movant has presented no evidence regarding what occurred at the hearing on a full order of protection.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Roberts v. State

2. “[Prosecutor]: One of the things you must find is that this death was outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman. What could be more outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman than being killed because of your race— [Defense attorney]: Objection. [Prosecutor]:—because you’re black? [Court]: The jury will understand that it must be guided by the evidence and disregard any argument outside of the evidence. You may proceed. [Prosecutor]: Thank you, Your Honor. [Defense attorney]: Your Honor, if I could farther that objection, it’s a misstatement of the aggravator and a misstatement of the law. That is not the aggravator. [Court]: The jury should, of course, refer to the instructions. The objection will be overruled.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Black

3. “Scientific evidence, such as hair, fiber, and blood type evidence, is often admitted where the only conclusion to be drawn is that the tested sample is consistent with the defendant’s sample, or that defendant’s sample shows that he cannot be excluded as the perpetrator. Therefore, it was not error, much less manifest injustice, to admit the testimony that [the defendant’s] DNA “matched” that of the DNA extracted from the semen stain on [the victim’s] coat.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Harding