Laakkonen 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. ““ ‘Constructive possession of contraband may be shown by proof of dominion and control over a vehicle containing contraband. United States v. Brunty, 701 F.2d 1375, 1382 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 848 , 104 S.Ct. 155 , 78 L.Ed.2d 143 (1983); United States v. Vera, 701 F.2d 1349, 1357 (11th Cir.1983).’ United States v. Clark, 732 F.2d 1536, 1540 (11th Cir.1984). A controlled substance may be jointly possessed, and possession may be established by circumstantial as well as direct evidence. Knight v. State, 622 So.2d 426, 430 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). ‘Proximity to illegal drugs, presence on the property where they are located, or mere association with persons who do control the drugs may be sufficient to support a finding of possession when accompanied with testimony connecting the accused with the incriminating surrounding circumstances.’ German v. State, 429 So.2d 1138, 1142 (Ala.Crim.App.1982).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Black v. State

2. “"[T]he State had failed to meet its burden of proving Laakkonen's prior conviction .... [A]n error during the evidentiary portion of a trial should be objected to as soon as the error becomes apparent."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex Parte Laakkonen

3. “Laakkonen failed to object to the State's attempt to impeach him while he was on the witness stand.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex Parte Laakkonen