Walters v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Upon the law of self defense you are instructed that a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself or a third person against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force and he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect, and the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person. The use of force against another is not justified in response to verbal provocation alone. A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other; and (2) if a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would not have retreated; and (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary; (a) to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; ... [[Image here]] “Reasonable belief’ means a belief that would be held by an ordinary and prudent person in the same circumstances as the defendant. [[Image here]] Now, therefore, ... if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt ... but you further find from the evidence, or have a reasonable doubt thereof, that the defendant reasonably believed as viewed from his standpoint alone that deadly force when and to the degree used, if it was, was immediately necessary to protect himself or a third person he seeks to pro”

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

2. “[The State]: I want to talk to you specifically about the second 9-1-1 call that came from the suspect, John Walters’, residence. From that phone call, was there any indication, during that call, as to that the person calling was the person that did the shooting? [English]: Not at that time, no. Q. Was there anything that would suggest that during that call? A. No, sir. Q. All right. And would you classify the emotional state of that particular caller as being excited? A. No, sir. Q. What would you characterize it as being during that call? A. Calm. [[Image here]] Q.... From your experience as being a dispatcher for three years, have you ever received calls like this before with regards to incidents? A. Like this before? Q. Yeah. A. No, sir. Q. Where just somebody would call and say, “Hey, somebody’s been shot”? A. No, sir, not exactly in those words. Q. All right. Seemed to be a little out of the ordinary? A. A little bit. Q. What would you have expected? A. Somebody very excited, shaky, even, maybe. Q. Did you get that here on this 9-1-1 call? A. No, sir.”

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

3. “The State made Walters’ state of mind a key issue in this case by focusing on Walters’ calm demeanor during the conversations with police. Walters’ demeanor was so presented to show that his actions were calmly intentional and premeditated. This focus is apparent in the State's questioning of English concerning the second 9-1-1 call.... English’s testimony concerning his conversations with Walters consisted of the declarations of two individuals as recounted by one participant, including only a portion of the content, but describing Walters’ demeanor. Walters sought to introduce a recording of the entirety of those conversations, that would have included the remainder of the content, and allowed the jury to determine for itself his demeanor without filtration through a third party. This is the very purpose of the rule of optional completeness.”

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