State v. Dobbs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The law places the burden upon the State to identify the defendants. The law does not require the defendant to prove he has been wrongly identified. In weighing the reliability of eyewitness identification testimony, you first should determine whether any of the following factors existed and, if so, tire extent to which they would affect accuracy of identification by an eyewitness. Factors you may consider are: “1. The opportunity a witness had to observe. This includes any physical condition which could affect the ability of the witness to observe, the length of the time of observation, and any limitations on observation like an obstruction or poor lighting; “2. The emotional state of tire witness at the time, including that which might be caused by the use of a weapon or a threat of violence; “3. Whether the witness had observed tire defendant on earlier occasions; “4. Whether a significant amount of time elapsed between the crime charged and any later identification; “5. Whether tire witness ever failed to identify tire defendant or made any inconsistent identification; “6. The degree of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the time of any identification of the accused-, and “7. Whether there are airy other circumstances that may have affected tire accuracy of the eyewitness identification.” (Emphasis added.)”

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

2. ““To determine whether a given instruction was clearly erroneous, we first determine whether the instruction was erroneous. This is a legal question subject to de novo review. If we find error, we then determine whether reversal is required. Reversal is required only if we are firmly convinced the jury would have reached a different verdict absent the error. We have unlimited review over the reversi bility determination and, in conducting that review, we examine the entire record as a whole. The defendant bears the burden of establishing clear error under K.S.A. 22-3414(3). State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 515-16 , 286 P.3d 195 (2012).” State v. Dobbs, 297 Kan. 1225, 1237 , 308 P.3d 1258 (2013).”

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

3. “did not satisfy the prosecution's burden because it failed to establish that the defendant was prohibited from possessing a firearm on the date in question. So we disagree that Valdez deviates from our earlier caselaw. Of course, we acknowledge that we did not explain these nuances in Valdez. And as Judge Malone pointed out, Valdez included language inconsistent with Lee. Guebara, 2023 WL 2194542 , at (Malone, J., concurring). For example, Valdez faulted the district court for not instructing the jury”

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