State v. Ebron’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

71 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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]f there is any likelihood that some prejudice is in the juror's mind which will even subconsciously affect his decision of the case, the party who may be adversely affected should be permitted questions designed to uncover that prejudice.... The latitude ... afforded the parties in order that they may accomplish the purposes of the voir dire [however] is tempered by the rule that [q]uestions addressed to prospective jurors involving assumptions or hypotheses concerning the evidence which may be offered at the trial ... should be discouraged .... [A]ll too frequently such inquiries represent a calculated effort on the part of counsel to ascertain before the trial starts what the reaction of the venire[person] will be to certain issues of fact or law or, at least, to implant in his mind a prejudice or prejudgment on those issues. Such an effort transcends the proper limits of the voir dire and represents an abuse of the statutory right of examination.... "Thus, we afford trial courts wide discretion in their supervision of voir dire proceedings to strike a proper balance between [the] competing considerations ... but at the same time recognize that, as a practical matter, [v]oir dire that touches on the facts of the case should be discouraged.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 Conn. App. 814 - State v. Patel

2. “[T]he present case is distinguishable from Fabricatore and Brewer because, although the defendant [in Ebron ] acquiesced in the charge that the trial court ultimately gave to the jury, he did not supply, or otherwise advocate for, the . . . language at issue [on] appeal. Put differently, there is no indication that the defendant actively induced the trial court to give the . . . instruction that he . . . challenges on appeal, which renders [his] claim reviewable under Golding .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kitchens

3. “although [defense counsel] acquiesced in the charge that the trial court ultimately gave to the jury, he did not supply, or otherwise advocate for, the . . . language at issue . . . [on] appeal. Put differently, there is no indication that the defendant actively induced the trial court to give the . . . instruction that he. . . challenges on appeal, which renders [his] claim reviewable under Golding .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kitchens