State v. Leverett’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
15
cited by 15 later decisions
4
states following
April 2008
most recently cited
15 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 23 U.S.C. § 408
Relies on Sandstrom v. Montana · Patterson v. New York · Rose v. Clark · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen · Francis v. Franklin
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In analyzing evidentiary presumptions in a criminal case, the reviewing court must focus on the particular language used to charge the jury and determine whether a reasonable juror could have interpreted the challenged instruction as an unconstitutional presumption. “Analysis must focus initially on the specific language challenged, but the inquiry does not end there. If a specific portion of the jury charge, considered in isolation, could reasonably have been understood as creating [an unconstitutional presumption], the potentially offending words must be considered in the context of the charge as a whole. Other instructions might explain the particular infirm language to the extent that a reasonable juror could not have considered the charge to have created an unconstitutional presumption.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.