Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 206 MDAPP 89 - Burris v. State

Burris v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2012

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Puckett v. United States · Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. · Klauenberg v. State · State v. Faulkner · 38 Cal. 4th 932 - People v. Gonzalez

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

  1. “Because we have witnesses who have changed their testimony from the time that they met with the police shortly after this event, to taking four[ 12 ] different tacts of denying their statements.... Each of them in their statements indicate some level of fear of the Defendant, some specifically stating because of his gang involvement or Barn’s gang involvement. That’s how it got to be relevant in the case. It was in the statements. I wasn’t going to clear it out of the statements. Now, the question is whether or not the State should be allowed to prove that the Defendant is in fact a member of a gang. I think because of the way in which the information came from the reluctant witnesses, it is unavoidable. Had the witnesses not been and I am satisfied afraid to testify, we could have kept this all out, but because they changed their testimony because I am satisfied that they were afraid to testify truthfully, then everything they said virtually has to come in to explain why they’ve changed their testimony.... Now, [Sergeant Workley] who is before us now and the evidence that we’re considering is only for the purpose of establishing whether or not the Defendant is a member of the gang. I remind you and the record that in anticipation of this, we asked the general voir dire question about whether information or references about gang activity would interfere with the juror’s ability to render a fair and impartial verdict. That said, ... I am anticipating from [both Burns’s counsel”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Within this world of, of science or circumstantial evidence is the world of scientific evidence and within that world there is now what is referred to as crime scene investigation type of evidence. The type of evidence that's been dramatized in the television programs, the Hannibal Lecter books and movies that deal with trace evidence. Trace evidence being hair and fingerprints and DNA and one book fingerprints on an eyeball. These are dramatizations of forms of circumstantial evidence. The jurors will be called upon to consider all of the evidence that is presented no matter who it is presented by . No matter what the person, the party is urging you to consider. Is there any member of the jury panel who would require trace evidence in order to accept a proposition presented by one of the parties? In other words, you say well, she didn't present this or he didn't present that. I can't accept it. Is there any member of the jury panel who set that form of artificial standard?”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “All four of the State’s fact witnesses — Lockwood, Sparrow, Falcon, and Johnson — expressed fear ... during their interviews [with investigators]. [Burris] has visible gang-related tattoos up and down each arm, and the tattoos clearly identify [Burris], who was known to and seen by the witnesses, as a member of a gang.... As such, in addition [to recanting witnesses] specific mentions of [Burris’s] gang affiliation and their fear, it is a reasonable inference that all of the witnesses’ fear and subsequent recantations at trial resulted from [Burris’s] gang affiliation coupled with either directly seeing [Burris] shoot the victim or hearing [Burris] admit to shooting the victim.”
    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.