State v. Long’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

94 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] golden rule argument is one that urges jurors to put themselves in a particular party's place ... or into a particular party's shoes. ... Such arguments are improper because they encourage the jury to depart from neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence. ... They have also been equated to a request for sympathy. ... The danger of these types of arguments lies in their [tendency] to pressure the jury to decide the issue of guilt or innocence on considerations apart from the evidence of the defendant's culpability.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Conn. App. 820 - State v. Williams · 176 Conn. App. 637 - State v. Danovan T.

2. “A prosecutor may not appeal to the emotions, passions and prejudices of the jurors. ... When the prosecutor appeals to emotions, he invites the jury to decide the case, not according to a rational appraisal of the evidence, but on the basis of powerful and irrelevant factors which are likely to skew that appraisal.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Conn. App. 668 - State v. Petion · 172 Conn. App. 820 - State v. Williams

3. “[N]ot all arguments that ask jurors to place themselves in a particular party's situation implicate the prohibition on golden rule argument. ... The animating principle behind the prohibition ... is that jurors should be encouraged to decide cases on the basis of the facts as they find them, and reasonable inferences ... rather than by any incitement to act out of passion or sympathy for or against any party. ... [A] prosecutor does not violate the golden rule by ... asking the jurors to place themselves in [a particular position] if the prosecutor is using these rhetorical devices to ask the jury to assess the evidence from the standpoint of a reasonable person or to employ common sense in evaluating the evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Conn. App. 820 - State v. Williams · 176 Conn. App. 637 - State v. Danovan T.