People v. Chamblis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 34 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Defense counsel’s objection to the giving of the instruction on lesser included offenses is not controlling. It is the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury as to the law applicable to the case. [Citation omitted.] Neither the defense nor the prosecution has the option of precluding the court from carrying out this duty in hopes offorcing an ‘all or nothing’ verdict.'””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Pribil · 1 Neb. Ct. App. 245 - State v. Britt

2. “Society has a legitimate interest in the jury's freedom to act according to the evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 35 Cal. 3d 510 - People v. Geiger · State v. Hansen

3. “As has been demonstrated, the informed choice of defense counsel to restrict attention to the principal charge has not been foreclosed by the majority's cases; neither is it prohibited by statute. [MCL 768.32] simply speaks to the possibility that the jury may find the accused not guilty of an offense in the degree charged in the indictment while still allowing a guilty verdict of any inferior degree of such offense. It does not speak to instructions on lesser included offenses. [MCL 768.29] says that the court shall instruct the jury as to the law applicable to the case, but does not mandate what law is applicable to the case. [Id., at 433, 236 N.W.2d 473 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Cornell