Gross v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We do not believe the poison had evaporated from the minds of the jurors because of the fact seventeen days elapsed between the time these unfortunate words were spoken to the jury and the time of the trial. A trial judge occupies a high position, and the jury should, and usually does, have great respect for him and is easily influenced by the slightest suggestion coming from him. Burnam v. Com., 283 Ky. 361 , 141 S.W. 2d 282 , and authorities therein cited. Practically the same statement made here was made by the trial judge in Shaw v. Com., 206 Ky. 781 , 268 S.W. 550 , and it was there held to be reversible error.””

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

2. ““ . . . [T]he rule appears to be that the practice of addressing the prospective jurors does not of itself constitute reversible error, although suggestions or statements which are likely to influence the decision of the jurors when called upon later to sit in a given case may constitute error and should be avoided, as should misstatements of the law or remarks disparaging legitimate defenses that may be made in cases to be tried, as well as references made directly or by innuendo to particular cases which might come before the jurors.””

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