Evans v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 8 district · 85 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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"When an appellant, in a criminal case, establishes error, unless a reviewing court, upon its own independent review of the record, is able to declare a belief, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error in no way influenced the verdict, such error cannot be deemed "harmless" and a reversal is mandated. Such reviewing court must thus be satisfied that there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of—whether erroneously admitted or excluded—may have contributed to the rendition of the guilty verdict."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Wilson v. State · Hutchins v. State

2. ““We examined the legislative intent of the provisions addressing victim impact statements at length in Lodowski v. State, 302 Md. 691 , 490 A.2d 1228 (1985), vacated on other grounds, 475 U.S. 1078 , 106 S.Ct. 1452 , 89 L.Ed.2d 711 (1986). After analyzing the legislative history, we stated: ‘It is apparent that the legislature intended that victim impact statements be admissible in capital case sentencing proceedings. Furthermore, the legislature declared admissible ‘[a]ny other evidence that the court deems of probative value and relevant to sentence, provided the defendant is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any statements.’ Art. 27, § 413(c)(l)(v).’ “Id. at 738-739, 490 A.2d at 1252 . We also recognized in Lodowski that ‘there is a reasonable nexus between the impact of the offense upon the victim or the victim’s family and the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime especially as to the gravity or aggravating quality of the offense.’ Id. at 741-42, 490 A.2d at 1254 . Thus, as the jury weighs the circumstances pursuant to § 413(h), victim impact evidence may ‘assist [the jury] in weighing the degree of harm that the defendant has caused and the corresponding degree of punishment that should be inflicted.’ Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. at 516, 107 S.Ct. at 2539 , 96 L.Ed.2d at 456 (White, J., dissenting). “Because such evidence may be both relevant and probative, we concluded in Lodowski that “the impact of the crime on the victim ... can properly be included in the”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lopez v. State · Conyers v. State

3. ““The fundamental rationale in leaving the matter of prejudice vel non to the sound discretion of the trial judge is that the judge is in the best position to evaluate it. The judge is physically on the scene, able to observe matters not usually reflected in a cold record. The judge is able to ascertain the demeanor of the witnesses and to note the reaction of the jurors and counsel to inadmissible matters. That is to say, the judge has a finger on the pulse of the trial.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Conyers v. State · Bruce v. State