Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Members of the jury, I have a note from you which states ‘Hung jury. Positively will not reach a decision.’ “The Court must ask you to give further consideration to the case. I know that it is the first case that many of you have had the privilege of sitting on and that you are not yet experienced in the matter of going over together carefully the evidence in the case and debating what weight, if any, should be given to the evidence. “It is very important that these litigants, that is, the State and Defendant in this case, be given all consideration possible to see whether or not a verdict can be reached. “The trial of a criminal case is a time-consuming and expensive matter both in time, money and emotion, and you will note that in this case the alleged incident is alleged to have taken place approximately 11 months ago. If the trial results in a hung jury, the case will have to be restored to the calendar and then tried before a different jury panel, and there is no reason to believe that more complete evidence or further evidence could be called to a different jury’s attention than has already been called to your attention. “Of course, the case does, by trial or otherwise, have to be disposed of sooner or later, so I cannot accept the time that you have been considering this case as adequate time to be absolutely sure that no unanimous verdict can be reached. I must ask you to deliberate further.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Adkins v. State

2. “However, a trial judge may not coerce the jury into reaching a verdict and, for that reason, any such charge must be carefully examined to determine its total effect on the jury in reaching a verdict.*** It is basic to our criminal law that a jury verdict must be unanimous and freely given and that, in order to convict, each individual juror must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; it is likewise basic that there is no absolute necessity that the jury reach a verdict. The danger of a “dynamite charge” is that it may suggest to the jurors that these fundamental standards might be compromised in order that a verdict be reached. * * * Nevertheless, we believe that this danger can be eliminated by having the charge include an admonition that each individual juror not surrender his or her honest convictions and not to return any verdict contrary to the dictates of person al conscience. * * * Without such an admonition, any supplementary charge may be, for that reason alone, overly coercive.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rush v. State

3. “However, a trial judge may not coerce the jury into reaching a verdict and, for that reason, any such charge must be carefully examined to determine its total effect on the jury in reaching a verdict.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fensterer v. State