State v. Bronson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 66 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Barbara Smith was found dead by her husband the morning of June 28, 1991. The cause of death was determined to be multiple stab wounds to the chest and blunt injuries to the face and head. No evidence indicated forcible entry. As the Omaha Police Division crime lab searched the scene for fingerprints and other physical evidence, other officers contacted persons in the area regarding any information they may have had about the murder. Bronson, who lived two homes away from the victim, was questioned as he was returning from work. He indicated that he had last been to the Smith residence on June 27 to borrow $5 from Ken Smith, the victim’s husband. On June 29 the police requested that appellant, as well as all other individuals known to have been in the Smith residence recently, go over to another neighbor’s residence to be fingerprinted. One of Bronson’s latent palm prints was found on the refrigerator and one of his patent fingerprints was observed in apparent blood on exhibit 9, a glass vase at the crime scene. Dr. Reena Roy, a forensic serologist, testified that a presumptive test for blood on the vase was positive. Linda Brokofsky, a fingerprint examiner for the Nebraska State Patrol, stated that she found a fingerprint in blood on the vase. Patricia Osier, a senior crime lab technician with the Omaha Police Division examined the vase and found a fingerprint in what appeared to be blood. On Monday, July 1, Police Officer Bill Jadlowski and Detective Wilson went to Bronson’”

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

2. “A mistrial is properly granted only when an event occurs during the course of a trial which is of such a nature that its damaging effects cannot be removed by proper admonition or instruction to the jury and would thus result in preventing a fair trial. The decision to grant a motion for mistrial is within the discretion of the trial court and will be upheld on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Palser, 238 Neb. 193 , 469 N.W.2d 753 (1991). In order for error to be predicated upon misconduct of counsel, it must be so flagrant that neither retraction nor rebuke from the court can entirely destroy its influence. State v. Valdez, 239 Neb. 453 , 476 N.W.2d 814 (1991). Before it is necessary to grant a mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show that a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred. State v. Zaritz, 235 Neb. 599 , 456 N.W.2d 479 (1990); State v. Valdez, supra.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2 Neb. Ct. App. 545 - State v. Ramold

3. “[T]o be admissible in evidence, an accused’s statement must be shown by the State to have been freely and voluntarily given and not to have been the product of any promise or inducement — direct or indirect — no matter how slight. . . . [T]he determination of voluntariness is based upon an assessment of all of the circumstances and factors surrounding the occurrence when the statement is made, and the determination made by the trial court . . . will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly wrong.”

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