Glossip v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 27 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Glossip claims that the State presented irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence during the first stage of trial. He claims that the State attempted to elicit sympathy for the victim.... However, trial counsel failed to object to any of the testimony Glossip now claims was improper. Therefore, he has waived all but a review for plain error.... Glossip first argues that the testimony of Donna Van Treese, the victim’s spouse was irrelevant to the first stage of trial.... Donna Van Treese ... described the victim as a fifty-four year old man, who had quit smoking six years prior, had gained weight, was balding, and had gray hair. He grew a full white beard and when he shaved it off; his daughter cried and begged him to grow it back.... Mrs. Van Treese was allowed to testify that the months prior to his death, a series of tragedies had occurred which included the death of her mother. After this death the family took a long trip in a motor home to several States. During this trip Mr. Van Treese felt an urgent need to get home. When they arrived home, they learned that Mr. Van Treese’s mother was scheduled for heart by-pass surgery that very morning. She did not survive the surgery. The purpose of this testimony was to show why Mr. Van Treese was not involved in the day to day operations of the motel in the months preceding his death. It was meant to show how the motel could slip into physical and financial disrepair without his knowledge. Evidence that Mr. Van Treese was a ham r”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Glossip v. Trammell

2. “Glossip claims that the State used demonstrative aids to overly emphasize certain portions of witnesses’ testimony. He claims that the posters (1) placed undue influence on selected testimony, (2) were the equivalent of continuous closing argument, and (3) violated the rule of sequestration.... ... Defense counsel requested that these poster sized note sheets be preserved ... for appellate review, but the trial court refused the request.... We are extremely troubled by the trial court’s attitude toward defense counsel’s attempt to preserve the demonstrative aides for appellate review. [Footnote 8: Glossip has asked for an evidentiary hearing so that the record may be supplemented with these demonstrative exhibits ...; however, we find that the inclusion of the demonstrative exhibits would not affect our decision in this case.] Here, the only way to determine what was on the posters, in toto, is to search the record and note where it appears that the prosecutor was writing on the note pad. According to the record cited, the prosecutor made notes of significant testimony on a large flip chart sized easel pad. This pad was left up for the jury to view during trial over trial counsel’s objection which was made after the second day of testimony. The record is not clear whether these pads stayed up during the entire trial. Glossip asserts that they stayed on display from witness to witness from the first day of testimony to the last with no citation to the record. Glossip cannot sa”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Glossip v. Trammell

3. “at least one material fact of independent evidence which tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Postelle v. State