State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(1) If any person charged with a crime and held in jail solely by reason thereof shall not be brought to trial within ninety (90) days after such person’s arraignment on die charge, such person shall be entided to be discharged from further liability to be tried for die crime charged, unless the delay shall happen as a result of the application or fault of the defendant, or a continuance shall be ordered by the court under subsection (3). “(3) The time for trial may be extended beyond die limitations of subsections (1) and (2) of this section for any of the following reasons: (c) There is material evidence which is unavailable; diat reasonable efforts have been made to procure such evidence; and that diere are reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence can be obtained and trial commenced within the next succeeding ninety (90) days. Not more than one continuance may be granted die state on diis ground, unless for good cause shown . . .”

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

2. ““ ‘The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel, and the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.’ ” State v. Brown, 266 Kan. 563, 577 , 973 P.2d 773 (1999) (quoting Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶ 2, 694 P.2d 468 [1985]).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 26 Kan. App. 2d 826 - Sanders v. State

3. ““ ‘A convicted defendant’s claim that counsel’s assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction requires that the defendant show, first, that counsel’s performance was deficient and, second, that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.’ ” Brown, 266 Kan. at 577 (quoting Chamberlain, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶ 3).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 26 Kan. App. 2d 826 - Sanders v. State