Robinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]t is Robinson’s efforts at blunting the prejudicial effect of the improper prior-bad-acts testimony that the majority now claims turns the admission of that improper evidence into harmless error. Such a claim can only be the result of syllogistically faulty circular reasoning. The prosecution’s prior-bad-acts evidence was admitted prior to any testimony from Robinson. The damage from this improper prior-bad-acts evidence was completed prior to any testimony from Robinson. The testimony by Robinson as to prior bad acts was presented in an effort to place into perspective the improper prior-bad-aets evidence that was previously introduced by the prosecution. Because the damage was done before Robinson’s attempt at mitigation, I would reverse and remand for a new trial. [[Image here]] The fallacy in the majority’s attempt at blaming Robinson is simple and straight forward. Robinson did not present any defense until after the State had rested its case in chief. The improper prior-bad-acts evidence was introduced by the State in its case-in-chief. The State’s sole purpose in introducing this improper prior-bad-acts evidence was to prove that Robinson killed [Moore], Before Robinson uttered the first word in his defense, the State had introduced the improper prior-bad-acts evidence, and the damage had been done. Contrary to the opinion of the majority, once the damage has been done, it cannot be undone. It especially cannot be undone by attempting to blame Robinson for the impro”

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

2. “Detective 1: ... Let me read this one to you.... I, Officer Williams, took a report from [McKinney].... It said ... her boyfriend, [Robinson], ... constantly keeps threatening her about killing her. He’s always ... taking her in the' middle of nowhere putting a gun to her head and throat and telling her what he would do to her. On the last evening 5-24-03 at approximately 16:30 to 17:00 hours, he took her to his house and started washing dishes. And when she told him that she was going home, he went ballistic, and started to push, kick and pull out her hair. He pulled a gun on her then, and once he settled down he just told her to leave. [[Image here]] Detective 1: Okay, you’ve got two women saying they felt like you were going to kill them at one point or time. Two separate women. [[Image here]] Detective 1: ... I got two different women saying ... you are doing these things to them. What do you say to them? ... First — tell us what happened with [McKinney]? She said you were washing dishes. She said she was going home and you go ballistic. You take her to the middle of nowhere, you pull a gun on her, threaten her.”

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

3. “Robinson said he ... told [Moore] that he was going to leave because he was on probation. Robinson’s own attorney then asked Robinson to elaborate on his prior convictions that led to his being on probation. Robinson responded and testified that he had prior domestic violence convictions for abusing [Moore] and [McKinney]. Because Robinson testified as to his prior conviction for domestic violence against [McKinney], and used that prior conviction as his justification for leaving [Moore’s] house after [she] was shot, [7] we find that Robinson did not experience any prejudice based on the revelation during the interrogation that he had a prior conviction for domestic assault against [McKinney].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Robinson v. State