State v. Ortega’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “While discussing the elements of disorderly conduct, the prosecutor pointed to the discrepancy in witnesses' testimony and reminded the jury that they are 'going to have to judge the credibility of witnesses.' The prosecutor continued stating: "'What reason do they have to lie to you? Perhaps somebody who might think, well, police officers do this all the time. I don't necessarily know why you would think that, but that's the most cynical possible thing I can think of. Well, set that aside. Do middle school secretaries come into court and lie all the time? Did Ms. Perez or Ms. Delarosa, the principal, have a reason to come in here and tell you that the defendant did something or said something that she didn't really do?'”

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

2. “The prosecutor made these comments so the jury could examine whether the witnesses here had a motive to lie—a valid consideration in weighing credibility. Further, the prosecutor did not inject any personal opinion into these statements. Rather, the prosecutor made a reasonable inference that these witnesses lacked a motive to lie given their peripheral connection to Hachmeister. Accordingly, the prosecutor's statements were within the wide latitude allowed the State when discussing evidence.”

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

3. “'When examining the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, the standard of review is whether, after reviewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'”

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