Broderick v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To violate the right against self-incrimination, the offending language must be viewed from the jury’s standpoint and the implication that the comment referred to the defendant’s failure to testify must be clear. It is not sufficient that the language might be construed as an implied or indirect allusion. The test is whether the language used was manifestly intended or was of such a character that the jury would necessarily and naturally take it as a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify. In applying this standard, the context in which the comment was made must be analyzed to determine whether the language used was of such character.”

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

2. “[A]n outcry witness is not person-specific, but event-specific. Before more than one outcry witness may testify, however, the outcry must be about different events, and not simply a repetition of the same event as related by the victim to different individuals.... [Tjhere may be two proper outcry witnesses if they each testify about different events, but there may be only one outcry witness to the victim’s statement about a single event. The proper outcry witness to a single event is the first adult person other than the defendant to whom the victim made a statement describing the incident.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Skie Jordan Smith v. State

3. “The admission of inadmissible hearsay constitutes nonconstitutional error, and it wbl be considered harmless if the appellate court, after examining the record as a whole, is reasonably assured that the error did not influence the jury verdict or had but a slight effect. Likewise, improper admission of evidence is not reversible error if the same or similar evidence is admitted without objection at another point in the trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Z.L.B.