State v. Freetime’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A juror must rely upon his memory in reaching a verdict. He shall not be permitted to refer to notes or to have access to any written evidence. Testimony shall not be repeated to the jury. Upon the request of a juror and in the discretion of the court, the jury may take with it or have sent to it any object or document received in evidence when a physical examination thereof is required to enable the jury to arrive at a verdict.”

   20 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Perkins · State v. R.W.W.

2. “"The physical-examination-required exception to the prohibition against documentary evidence going to the jury came into the jurisprudence (see 31 Tul.L.Rev. 693) with dictum in State v. Colbert, 29 La.Ann. 715 (1877). That decision upheld the trial court's refusal to let an affidavit properly introduced in evidence to go to the jury for its deliberations, but noted that such might be done in instances such as where `it was necessary for a jury to compare handwriting.' 29 La.Ann. 717 . "The re-examining of a documentary exhibit for its verbal content has not been included as an allowable purpose of ` physical examination.' We found no Louisiana decision where, over objection, the jury was afforded access to a documentary, after the case was submitted to it, for such purpose. To the contrary, convictions have been reversed when, over objection, documentary exhibits were given to the jury for the purpose of permitting it access to the verbal contents thereof. State v. Arnaudville, 170 La. 151 , 127 So. 395 (1930) (account book); State v. Harrison, 149 La. 83, 89 , 88 So. 696 (1921) (bloodhound pedigrees)." 303 So.2d at 489 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 345 So. 2d 874 - State v. Passman · 537 So. 2d 1262 - State v. Adams

3. “* * * * * * Nevertheless, the Louisiana legislature has made the value-determination that, because of presumed prejudice, documents received in evidence should be sent to the jury on its request only `when a physical examination thereof is required to enable the jury to arrive at a verdict,' Article 793 ... The present confession does not fall within this exception, since the purpose of its going to the jury did not concern a physical examination, such as to see or feel or measure it with regard to an issue raised in connection with such physical examination. The jurisprudence, as well as the general intent of the code article, do not support a contention that a confession should be permitted to go to the jury for the sole purpose of its re-reading the verbal content of the exhibit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 527 So. 2d 488 - State v. Gracia