State v. DeJesus’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
108 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably State v. Schiappa (1999), State v. Booth (1999)
108 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Watts v. Indiana · Hullum v. United States · State v. Sivri · State v. Greenfield · State v. Joyner
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The credibility of expert witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony and to that of lay witnesses . . . is determined by the trier of fact. . . . In its consideration of the testimony of an expert witness, the trial court might weigh, as it sees fit, the expert's expertise, his opportunity to observe the defendant and to form an opinion, and his thoroughness. it might consider also the reasonableness of his judgments about the underlying facts and of the conclusions which he drew from them. "It is well settled that the trier of fact can disbelieve any or all of the evidence proffered . . . including expert testimony, and can construe such evidence in a manner different from the parties' assertions." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. DeJesus, 236 Conn. 189 , 201 , 672 A.2d 488 (1996)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The fact, therefore, that both of the defendant's expert witnesses supported his claim of insanity while the state chose to call no expert witnesses, but rather principally relied on cross-examination of the defendant's expert witnesses, does not require a determination that the trier of fact reasonably could not have concluded that the defendant had failed to prove insanity by the required standard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he determination of the presence or absence of extreme emotional disturbance is one of fact for the trier, and our review is the same whether the trier of fact is a judge, a panel of judges or a jury”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.