Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 237 CONN 348 - State v. Gerardi

State v. Gerardi’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
1
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably State v. Taylor (1996), State v. Hampton (2009)

51 state decisions

230199620002010decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Sandstrom v. Montana · State v. Golding

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

  1. “An entirely permissive inference or presumption, which allows — but does not require — the trier of fact to infer the elemental fact form the proof by the prosecutor of the basic one and that places no burden of any kind on the defendant . . . [does not violate due process unless] there is no rational way the trier could make the connection permitted by the inference.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “`A mandatory presumption instructs the jury that it must infer the presumed fact if the State proves certain predicate facts. A permissive inference suggests to the jury that a possible conclusion may be drawn if the State prove predicate facts, but does not require the jury to draw that conclusion.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “To pass constitutional muster, a presumption must be cast as a `permissive inference . . . [which] does not relieve the State of its burden of persuasion because it still requires the State to convince the jury that the suggested conclusion should be inferred based on the predicate facts proved.'”
    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.