State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 63 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In determining whether the atmosphere is such that a defendant’s right to a fair trial would be jeopardized, courts have looked at such factors as the particular degree to which the publicity circulated throughout the community; the degree to which the publicity or that of a like nature circulated to other areas to which venue could be changed; the length of time which elapsed from the dissemination of the publicity to the date of trial; the care exercised and the ease encountered in the selection of the jury; the familiarity with the publicity complained of and its resultant effects, if any, upon the prospective jurors or the trial jurors; the challenges exercised by the defendant in the selection of the juiy, both peremptoiy and for cause; the connection of government officials with the release of the publicity; the severity of the offense charged; and die particular size of the area from which the venire is drawn. [Citation omitted.]””

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

2. ““A claim that the departure factors relied upon by the sentencing court do not constitute substantial and compelling reasons for departure is a question of law for which an appellate court’s review is unlimited. State v. Cox, 258 Kan. 557, 575 , 908 P.2d 603 (1995); State v. Gideon, 257 Kan. 591 , Syl. ¶ 20, 894 P.2d 850 (1995). A clearly erroneous standard applies to a claim that the evidence was insufficient to justify a departure. State v. Gideon, 257 Kan. 591 , Syl. ¶ 20.””

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

3. “The giving of an instruction is clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court reaches a firm conviction that absent the alleged error there was a real possibility the jury would have returned a different verdict.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 25 Kan. App. 2d 302 - State v. Naramore