McKenna v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) There is no specific evidence in the record regarding the cost to the State in regaining custody of Mossburg. However, the Sheriff's Return on the Alias Capias indicates that the State located him in Jones County. (2) Mossburg failed to appear on August 30, 2002 and was arrested on January 9, 2003. There was a delay of approximately 132 days. (3) There is no evidence in the record of Mossburg's willful breach of the bond conditions. However, McKenna failed to present any evidence that it was not a willful breach. (4) The public interest in law enforcement was served by Mossburg's reapprehension. There is no evidence of harm to the public during the intervening period. (5) McKenna failed to present any evidence that he attempted to locate Mossburg. He argues that he presented uncontested evidence that the State failed to ". . . issue an arrest warrant which rendered [McKenna] helpless in having the Defendant arrested." However, the Alias Capias indicates that it was issued on August 30, 2002, the day Mossburg failed to appear. The State argues that the Jones County Sheriff's officers arrested Mossburg without any assistance from McKenna. (6) The record does not show that the government suffered any prejudice in prosecuting the criminal case against Mossburg.”

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

2. ““[T]he majority has placed the burden on the State to avoid a remittitur by presenting evidence. This is an erroneous placement of the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the surety to establish that on equitable grounds a remittitur should be ordered.” [[Image here]] “The hearing [on the special bill of review] focused on McKenna’s efforts to locate Powell. Evidence on this single factor was not enough to convince the trial court of the surety’s equitable interest in being granted a remittitur. I find no abuse of discretion.” Id. at 238-239 .”

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