State v. Shaffer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 118 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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' “In a capital case the jury may qualify its verdict of guilty as follows: “(1) With the addition of the words ‘without capital punishment’, in which ease the punishment shall he imprisonment at hard labor for life, or “(2) With the addition of the words ‘without capital punishment or benefit of parole, probation, commutation, or suspension of sentence’, in which case the-punishment shall be imprisonment at hard labor for life without benefit of parole, probation, commutation or suspension of' sentence.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Bullock · 10 So. 3d 896 - State v. GRH

2. ““In applying Art. 766 of the Code of Criminal Procedure I was of the opinion that the District Attorney inadvertently substituted the name ‘Rampart’, when he meant ‘Robertson’ in referring to the address of the crime and that he, in fact, had acted in good faith. “I further failed to find that this matter either took the defense by surprise or prejudiced them in the defense of their case. It should be pointed out that neither defense counsel claimed surprise or prejudice at the time of making the objection to testimony regarding 1507 North Robertson Street. “Defense counsel in stating his reason for objecting was that the District Attorney had restricted himself in his opening statement to the facts he said he would try to establish. This Court felt that inasmuch as the opening statement of the State is to explain the nature of the charge and set forth in general terms the nature of the evidence by which the State expects to prove the said charge, it was mentioned by the District Attorney in his opening statement that the address of 1507 North Rampart Street was in the City of New Orleans. The transcript of the testimony is that the offense occurred within the jurisdiction of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, namely: that it occurred in the City of New Orleans. Therefore, this Court in finding that the opening statement by the State properly outlined the nature of the case and the proof to be submitted and that the matter complained of and objected to in ”

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

3. “"The opening statement has no probative force. State v. Kreller, 255 La. 982 , 233 So.2d 906 . It is designed to inform and protect from surprise. The failure to produce the medical evidence raises only a question of sufficiency of the proof and is no ground for a mistrial. See C.Cr.P. Art. 775."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 343 So. 2d 149 - State v. Green