State v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 63 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If the evidence offered by the State is received after challenge and is legally sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, the State is not obligated to go further and adduce additional evidence that would be, for example, cumulative. Were it otherwise, the State, to be secure, would have to assume every ruling by the trial court on the evidence to be erroneous and marshall and offer every bit of relevant and competent evidence. The practical consequences of this would adversely affect the administration of justice, if for no other reason, by the time which would be required for preparation and trial of every case.” State v. Wood (Mo.1980), 596 S.W.2d 394, 398-399 ; State v. Gray (1986), 200 Conn. 523, 538 , 512 A.2d 217 . Thus, retrial grants the state “one full and fair opportunity” to present its evidence to the jury free from error. See [Arizona v.] Washington, 434 U.S. [497,] 505, 98 S.Ct. 824 , 54 L.Ed.2d 717 [1978].”

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

2. “`is a determination that a defendant has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect, e.g., incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence. . . . When this occurs, the accused has a strong interest in obtaining a fair readjudication of his guilt free from error, just as society maintains a valid concern for insuring that the guilty are punished.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Colton, No. Cr6-289646 (Jan. 5, 1994)