State v. Brinklow’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

56 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “First, the court must determine whether the prosecutor’s statements were outside the wide latitude for language and manner a prosecutor is allowed when discussing the evidence; second, it must determine whether the comments constitute plain error, that is, whether the statements were so gross and flagrant as to prejudice the jury against the accused and deny him or her a fair trial.” [Citations omitted.]’ “The second step addresses whether the misconduct is so prejudicial that it denies the defendant a fair trial and requires a harmlessness inquiry. [State v. Brinklow, 288 Kan. 39, 44 , 200 P.3d 1225 (2009)]. Three factors are considered: ‘(1) whether die misconduct was gross and flagrant; (2) whether the misconduct showed ill will on the prosecutor’s part; and (3) whether the evidence was of such a direct and overwhelming nature that the misconduct would likely have had little weight in the minds of jurors.’ [Citation omitted.] No individual factor is controlling, and the third factor may never override the first two until both harmlessness tests — K.S.A. 60-261 (prosecutor’s statements were inconsistent with substantial justice) and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967) (error had little, if any, likelihood of changing the outcome of trial)— have been met. ‘ “ ‘If this can be said, then certainly it will also be true “that the misconduct would likely have little weight in the minds of jurors.” ’ ” ’ [Citations omitted.]” State”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Naputi · State v. Kemble

2. ““(1) whether the misconduct was gross and flagrant; (2) whether the misconduct showed ill will on the prosecutor’s part; and (3) whether the evidence was of such a direct and overwhelming nature that the misconduct would likely have had little weight in the minds of jurors. None of these three factors is individually controlling.” McReynolds, 288 Kan. at 323 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 46 Kan. App. 2d 401 - State v. Crawford

3. “Whether reversal is required by any one of the trial errors may be open to debate. 11 However, the cumulative effect of the errors prejudiced Brinklow's ability to obtain a fair trial. Given that the evidence against the defendant was not overwhelming, we must reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Taylor