JOHNSON, ETC. v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 124 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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[C]onvictions based on inconsistent jury verdicts are tolerated because of the singular role of the jury in the criminal justice system.... [T]here is a ‘reluctance to interfere, with the results of unknown jury interplay,’ at least without proof of ‘actual irregularity.’ ... [inconsistencies may be the product of lenity, mistake, or a compromise to reach unanimity, and ... the continual correction of such matters would undermine the historic role of the jury as arbiter of questions put to it. In the present case, however, the inconsistent verdicts were" rendered by a judge, not by a jury. [The above rationale] does not justify inconsistent verdicts from the trial judge.” “ ‘There is no need to permit inconsistency ... so that the judge may reach unanimity with himself; on the contrary, he should be forbidden this easy method for resolving doubts.... We do not believe we would enhance respect for the law or for the courts by recognizing for a judge the same right to indulge in “vagaries” in the disposition of criminal charges that, for historic reasons, has been granted the jury.’ ””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 38 Va. App. 199 - Cleveland v. Commonwealth · Galloway v. State

2. “"* * * However, unlike Preston , in this case, the automobile, according to the information previously given by Mrs. Haymaker which the officers had reasonable cause to believe was true, had been used as an instrument in the perpetration of the alleged crime; Mrs. Haymaker stated that she had been raped in the back seat. * * * Where there has been a valid arrest, property found in connection with the arrest which tends to establish the commission of the crime charged may be held by the officers for evidence. If the arrest is lawful, the seizure is lawful, if the property is of an evidentiary nature. (Citing authorities.) The automobile itself could have been offered in evidence at the trial. Having lawfully seized it, the police had the right to examine it after the seizure for evidence in connection with the crime. * * *" 238 Md. at 539-540 , 209 A.2d at 770 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gaston v. State · 23 Md. App. 540 - Moore v. State

3. ““Consistency in the verdict is not necessary.... “That the verdict may have been the result of compromise, or of a mistake on the part of the jury,, is possible. But verdicts cannot be upset by speculation or inquiry into such matters.””

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