State v. Peeler’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
206 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 206 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably State v. Patterson (2005), State v. Brunetti (2006)
206 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3593 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 3594 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Davis v. Alaska · Pinkerton v. United States · State v. Golding · Caldwell v. Mississippi
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 206 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he first two [prongs of Golding ] involve a determination of whether the claim is reviewable”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Specifically, Keene testified that the [petitioner] first told her to move in November, 1998. She stated that, '[the petitioner] told me shit was starting to get hot and he [was] about to start getting witnesses, witnesses-wait a minute. First he told me witnesses [were] about to get killed.' She further testified that the [petitioner] warned her again on Christmas day in 1998 stating: '[The petitioner] was talking in an opening to everybody, but, like me mainly ... I'm telling her she better move. Shit about to start getting hot, meaning people starting to get killed.' Finally, Keene testified that, when the [petitioner] spoke about killing witnesses, he quoted the following lyrics from a rap song: '[N]iggers want to lie, niggers wonder why, niggers gonna die.' " Peeler II , supra, 271 Conn. at 351 n.12, 857 A.2d 808 . "Although there was no direct evidence presented at trial that the [petitioner] knew that the state had used the shell casings left behind at the Lindley Avenue shooting to link that shooting to Snead's murder, the jury reasonably could have inferred that while preparing his defense to the Snead murder case, the [petitioner] was informed by his counsel that the state intended to use the discarded shell casings to link him to Snead's murder.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Relevant evidence is evidence that has a logical tendency to aid the trier in the determination of an issue. ... One fact is relevant to another if in the common course of events the existence of one, alone or with other facts, renders the existence of the other either more certain or more probable. ... Evidence is irrelevant or too remote if there is such a want of open and visible connection between the evidentiary and principal facts that, all things considered, the former is not worthy or safe to be admitted in the proof of the latter. ... The trial court has wide discretion to determine the relevancy of evidence and [e]very reasonable presumption should be made in favor of the correctness of the court's ruling in determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.