Brooks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 8 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A portion of the evidence presented by the State is the testimony of admitted participants in the crime with which these defendants are charged. For obvious reasons, the testimony of an alleged accomplice should be examined by you with more care and caution than the testimony of a witness who did not participate in the crime charged. This rule becomes particularly important when there is nothing in the evidence, direct or circumstantial, to corroborate the alleged accomplices' accusation that these defendants participated in the crime. Without such corroboration, you should not find the defendants guilty unless, after careful examination of the alleged accomplices’ testimony, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true and you may safely rely upon it. Of course, if you are so satisfied, you would be justified in relying upon it, despite the lack of corroboration, and in finding the defendants guilty.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McCoy v. State · Hoskins v. State

2. “Counsel who forgets to request an instruction that could help his client fails to meet an objective standard of reasonableness.”). 40 . Smith, 991 A.2d at 1180 . 41 . Id. 42 . Id. 43 . Hoskins I, 14 A.3d 554, 556-59 (Del.2011), overruled by Brooks, 40 A.3d 346 . 44 . Hoskins I, 14 A.3d at 562 (emphasis in original). 45 . See Brooks, 40 A.3d at 350 . 46 . See Guy v. State, 82 A.3d 710, 714 (Del.2013) (”

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

3. “When considering whether to request an instruction on accomplice testimony, the defense gains nothing by failing to request a cautionary instruction, aside perhaps from a later chance at a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.”); Smith, 991 A.2d at 1177 (”

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