State v. Marble’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “When determining whether prosecutorial misconduct was prejudicial, factors that should be considered include: (1) Is the misconduct so gross and flagrant as to deny the accused a fair trial? (2) Do the remarks show ill will on die prosecutor’s part? (3) Is the evidence against the defendant of such a direct and overwhelming nature diat the misconduct would likely have little weight in die minds of the jurors? [Citations omitted.]” ’ ” Lockhart, 24 Kan. App. 2d at 492 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 24 Kan. App. 2d 488 - State v. LOCKHART, JR. · State v. Pabst

2. ““It is the general rule that counsel may not make assertions of fact in the form of questions to a witness absent a good faith basis for believing the asserted matters to be true. Graham, Evidence: Text, Rules, Illustrations and Problems, p. 436 (2d ed. 1989). A lawyer may not ‘in trial-allude to any matter . . . that will not be supported by admissible evidence.’ MRPC 3.4(e) (1994 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 352). However, reversal for failure to prove the underlying factual basis often requires that the record establish the lawyer knew the underlying facts to be false or that the lawyer acted in bad faith. See Williams v. Mensey, 785 F.2d 631, 638-39 (8th Cir. 1986). But, when it is the prosecution in a criminal case who makes assertions of fact against the accused during cross-examination, such an affirmative showing of bad faith is not universally required.” State v. Marble, 21 Kan. App. 2d 509 , 901 P.2d 521 (1995).”

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