State v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

89 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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Appellate review of an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct requires a two-step analysis. First, an appellate court decides whether the comments were outside the wide latitude that a prosecutor is allowed in discussing the evidence. Second, if misconduct is found, an appellate court must determine whether the improper comments prejudiced the jury against the defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial.” State v. Marshall, 294 Kan. 850, 856 , 281 P.3d 1112 (2012).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Wells · State v. Mireles

2. “'the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront the eyewitness. . . . Another is the defendant's right to the effective assistance of an attorney, who can expose the flaws in the eyewitness' testimony during cross-examination and focus the jury's attention on the fallibility of such testimony during opening and closing arguments. . . . The constitutional requirement that the government prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt also impedes convictions based on dubious identification evidence.'”

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

3. “[A] prosecutor's improper comment or argument can be prejudicial, even if the misconduct was extemporaneous and made under the stress of rebutting arguments made by defense counsel.”

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