State v. Coccomo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

63 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “has identified four factors relevant to determining whether the admission of otherwise probative evidence is unduly prejudicial. These are: (1) where the facts offered may unduly arouse the [jurors'] emotions, hostility or sympathy, (2) where the proof and answering evidence it provokes may create a side issue that will unduly distract the jury from the main issues, (3) where the evidence offered and the counterproof will consume an undue amount of time, and (4) where the defendant, having no reasonable ground to anticipate the evidence, is unfairly surprised and unprepared to meet it.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 623 - State v. Jackson · 187 Conn. App. 661 - State v. Berrios

2. “[T]he fact that ambiguities or explanations may exist which tend to rebut an inference of guilt does not render [such] evidence ... inadmissible but simply constitutes a factor for the jury's consideration.... The fact that the evidence might support an innocent explanation as well as an inference of a consciousness of guilt does not make [the admission of evidence of consciousness of guilt] erroneous.... Moreover, [t]he court [is] not required to enumerate all the possible innocent explanations offered by the defendant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 166 Conn. App. 142 - State v. Leniart · 176 Conn. App. 666 - State v. Jeffrey H.

3. “a logical tendency to aid the trier in the determination of an issue.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 623 - State v. Jackson · 176 Conn. App. 666 - State v. Jeffrey H.