233 Ga. App. 32 - Stephens 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. “As in McDuffie, supra at 548 , no correlation can be discerned between opening or concluding closing argument and conviction or acquittal. Two of Stephens’s codefendants [including the appellant herein] argued before the State; one was acquitted and one convicted. Stephens and the third codefendant argued after the State; Stephens was convicted while his codefendant was acquitted. “This defendant was not denied the right to argue his case to the jury and in fact did so. He was merely prohibited from making the closing argument. The co-defendant who had the closing argument was also found guilty by the jury. In view of the evidence against the defendants, it is highly probable, if not a certainty, that the error did not contribute to the conviction. (Cit.) Thus, a new trial is not required by the trial court’s harmless error.” Id.”

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