Bragg v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

88 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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The testimony presented at trial reveals the following facts. On March 26, 1993, Agent Keith Ray, an undercover officer for the South Central Drug Task Force, and Mark Smith [sic], a confidential informant, went to the residence of John Noland [sic ] in Prescott for the purpose of purchasing cocaine. Agent Ray told Noland [sic ] that he wanted to buy $50 worth of crack cocaine and No-land [sic ] indicated that he had someone there who could help him. Noland [sic ] then led Agent Ray to the kitchen door, where he instructed Ray to wait. Agent Ray observed three men sitting at the kitchen table with a large amount of what appeared to be crack cocaine. After Noland [sic] had spoken to one of them, that man got up from the table and came to where Agent Ray was standing and asked Ray what he wanted. Again, Agent Ray indicated that he wanted to buy $50 worth of crack cocaine. The man then handed Agent Ray one piece of the rock-like substance and Ray paid him $50. After they had left the residence, Agent Ray described for Smith [sic], who was not present during the drug transaction, the man from whom Ray had purchased the drugs. Smith [sic] told Agent Ray that the man may have been Noland’s [sic] cousin, Rodney Mitchell [sic]. When Agent Ray later viewed photographs of Mitchell [sic], however, he indicated that Mitchell [sic ] was not the person who sold him the cocaine. Agent Ray was unable to identify the suspect for approximately one year. On March 1, 1994, in Clark County Agent ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 128 F. Supp. 2d 587 - Bragg v. Norris

2. “Myself and Mr. Smith [sic ] pulled up to the residence in my vehicle. Mr. Smith [sic ] got out, wen to the door of Mr. Noland’s [sic ], knocked on the door, Mr. Noland [sic ] came to the door, they went inside, maybe a minute, Mr. Smith [sic] came back outside and motioned for me to get out and to come on in. I went inside the door, Mr. Noland [sic ] and Mr. Smith [sic ] were standing there talking, Mr. Noland [sic ] asked me what I was looking for referring to the drugs, and I told him I was looking for fifty dollars ($50.00) worth of crack cocaine. He told me that he had a guy - He advised me that he had a subject there that could serve myself. Mr. No-land [sic ] went back toward the kitchen of his residence. At this time Mr. Smith [sic ] advised Mr. Noland [sic ] that he needed to use the restroom, and he left the room. Myself and Mr. Noland [sic ] went to the kitchen door, he told me to stop there. I could see inside there was three subjects sitting as [sic ] the kitchen table, and they had a large amount of off-colored rock like substance on the kitchen table that appeared to be what I know was crack cocaine. Mr. Noland [sic ] then spoke to one of the men that was sitting at the table, and he got up and came to the kitchen door stepped around, and he asked me what I was looking for I told him fifty. He took one piece of rock and handed it to me, and I handed him fifty dollars ($50.00) in the United States currency.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 128 F. Supp. 2d 587 - Bragg v. Norris

3. “In Martin v. State, 316 Ark. 715 , 875 S.W.2d 81 (1994), . . . the officer testified to information he had received from an informant, who had wished to remain anonymous, concerning the identity of a robbery suspects truck, upon which he had relied in broadcasting a description to other police units. The officer testified further that his broadcast alerted another officer to the suspect truck, which, in turn, caused that second officer to inform a third officer to be on the lookout for the truck. This court held that because the first officer’s testimony was provided in order to show the basis for his actions, the trial court did not err in admitting the testimony. Similarly, in Hamm v. State, 304 Ark. 214 , 800 S.W.2d 711 (1990), the alleged hearsay testimony involved an officer’s receipt of information from other officers regarding the description of an automobile. This court upheld the admission of the officer’s testimony, as it was merely offered to show that the officer acted on the description of the car given to him by the other officers. In Johnson v. State, 313 Ark. 308 , 854 S.W.2d 336 (1993), the defense made a hearsay objection when the police officer testified concerning information received from a citizen. This court found no error since the officer’s testimony was not offered for the truth of the citizen’s statement, but, instead, was offered to show what information the police acted upon.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 69 Ark. App. 186 - McKenzie v. State