Tucker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] court's proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (Hii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Bear Cloud v. State · SACCATO v. State

2. “they have the same meaning and are co-extensive in application.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Richard J. Redding v. State · Raymond Anthony Derrera v. The State of Wyoming

3. “Lay opinion testimony is intended "only to help the jury or the court to understand the facts about which the witness is testifying and not to provide specialized explanations or interpretations that an untrained layman could not make if perceiving the same acts or events." [United States v.] Peoples, 250 F.3d [630,] 641 [(8th Cir.2001) ] (citing United States v. Cortez, 985 F.2d 135, 139-40 (8th Cir.1991); United States v. Figueroa-Lopez, 125 F.3d 1241, 1244-45 (9th Cir.1997)). In accordance with this principle, we have held that "W.R.E. 701 cannot be read to allow a witness who fails to qualify as an expert to offer opinion testimony 'where the subject in question lies outside the realm of common experience and requires special skill or knowledge'" Carroll v. Bergen, 2002 WY 166, ¶21 , 57 P.3d 1209, 1217 (Wyo.2002) (citing Kemper Architects, P.C. v. McFall, Konkel & Kimball Consulting Engineers, Inc., 843 P.2d 1178, 1190 (Wyo.1992) (quoting 3 David W. Louisell & Christopher B. Mueller, Federal Evidence § 376 at 419 (Supp.1992))). h ook If a witness's testimony draws on experience beyond the ken of the average person, that witness must meet the qualification requirements of Rule 702.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In the Matter of the Paternity of HLG, Minor Child: JN v. RFSG · Inman v. State