Taylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Elven when the judge personally disagrees with the jury's verdict, this does not, by itself, warrant the judge in ordering a new trial. Rather, 'a judge should vacate a jury's verdict and grant a new trial under [Alaska] Criminal Rule 33 only when the evidence is so one-sided that the jury's contrary v1ew of the case is plainly unreasonable and unjust.' ... A judge deciding a motion for a new trial is not supposed to ask whether there is any conceivable evidentiary basis for the jury's decision. Rather, the fudge is supposed to independently assess the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. Then, if the jury held a contrary view of the case, the judge must ask whether (in the judge's assessment) the evidence is so one-sided 'that the jury's contrary view of the case is plainly unreasonable and unjust,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

2. “preponderates heavily against the verdict”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA Inc.