Metzger v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Jury instructions should inform the jurors concerning the applicable law so that they can apply that law to their findings with respect to the material facts, instructions should be written with the particular facts and legal theories of each case in mind and often differ from case to case since any one of several instructional options may be legally correct, a failure to give an instruction on an essential element of a criminal offense is fundamental error, as is a confusing or misleading instruction, and the test of whether a jury has been properly instructed on the necessary elements of a crime is whether the instructions leave no doubt as to the cireumstances under which the crime can be found to have been committed.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Yellowbear v. State · Six v. State

2. “Claims of prosecutorial misconduct are settled by reference to the entire record and hinge on whether a defendant's case has been so prejudiced as to constitute denial of a fair trial. Similarly, the propriety of any comment within a closing argument is measured in the context of the entire argument.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sanchez v. State · Bustos v. State

3. “During voir dire, the prosecutor posed this series of questions to the jury panel: I want to talk to you a little bit about the dynamics of being involved — in children 'being involved in a sexual abuse ease, and you people, and people in general. Does anybody have a problem with the notion that people use children for sexual gratification? (No verbal response) Is anybody here so innocent [as] to believe that that simply cannot happen in this society, in this community right here, in Casper, Wyoming? Does anybody believe that? (No verbal response) You would be surprised that once in a while that’s true. Does anybody here on this panel that I’m addressing believe that there is more proof required when a child is a victim versus when an adult is a victim? (No verbal response) First, we take note that no objections were made to any of the questions. We also note that during voir dire, counsel for the defense asked many questions along the same lines as those asked by the prosecutor. Indeed, this issue might have been posed in its opposite form had the questions asked by both sides been prohibited by the trial court. Metzger suggests that the questioning at issue violated the spirit and the letter of W.R.Cr.P. 24(c)(2) (improper for counsel to precondition jurors to a particular result, etc.). It is our view that the questioning at issue was consistent with, and was the sort of questioning contemplated by, W.R.Cr.P. 24(c)(1): “The only purpose of the examination [of jurors] is to”

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