Wright v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Kentucky has long employed the use of ‘bare bones’ jury instructions that avoid an abundance of detail, providing only a framework of the applicable legal principles.” Hilsmeier v. Chapman, 192 S.W.3d 340, 344 (Ky. 2006). At a minimum, however, “[ijnstructions must be based upon the evidence and they must properly and intelligibly state the law.” Howard v. Commonwealth, 618 S.W.2d 177, 178 (Ky. 1981). Their purpose “is to state what the jury must believe from the evidence in qrder to return a verdict in favor of the party who bears the burden of proof.” Webster v. Commonwealth, 608 S.W.2d 33, 36 (Ky. 1974). In criminal cases, instructions “should conform to the language of the statute,” Park's v. Commonwealth, 192 S.W.3d 318, 326 (Ky. 2006), and “[i]t is left to the lawyers to ‘flesh out’'the ‘bare bones’ in closing argument.” Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lewis v. Commonwealth

2. “Although Appellant admits this error was not properly preserved for review, he is correct in his assertion that this issue may be presented for the first time on appeal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bowling v. Commonwealth