State v. Aparo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 57 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`must be set in a practical frame and viewed with an eye to all the circumstances of the proceedings.' Sealfon v. United States , 332 U.S. 575 , 579 [ 68 S.Ct. 237 , 98 L.Ed. 180 (1948)].”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 167 Conn. App. 74 - State v. Guerrera · 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 6426 - Thomas v. Rowland, No. Cv95-0247686 (Jun. 30, 1995)

2. “Collateral estoppel means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.... In a criminal context, the doctrine prohibits the government from forcing a defendant to defend against charges or allegations which he overcame in an earlier trial.... For estoppel to apply, the fact sought to be foreclosed by [the] defendant must necessarily have been determined in his favor in the prior trial; it is not enough that the fact may have been determined in the former trial.... The defendant has the burden of showing that the issue whose relitigation he seeks to foreclose was actually decided in the first proceeding.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 184 Conn. App. 419 - State v. Jackson · 167 Conn. App. 74 - State v. Guerrera

3. “We tolerate inconsistencies in unified jury verdicts in criminal cases, not because of any singular virtue we attribute to inconsistency, but rather out of deference to the nature of the jury and the role it plays in our jurisprudence. There is no question but that a jury in a criminal trial has the power to render a verdict of acquittal that is wholly at odds with the law and the facts . . . We recognize that the jury is in a sense the conscience of the community and can, for example, render a verdict to mitigate an overly severe punishment . . . Similarly, in compromising in order to reach a unanimous verdict, a jury is often fulfilling its role as a cross-section of the community that it is supposed to represent. Occasional anomalies are the price of unanimity. . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 3068 - State v. Kelly, No. Cr 1-52961 (Jul. 1, 1997)