Graham v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Finally, no error of constitutional magnitude stems from the mere fact that a form of the Allen, [Allen v. U. S., 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 ] charge was given twice. Without regard to the number of times the charge is given, the test is whether the instructions to the jury were coercive under all the circumstances, a test'which, we have concluded, was not violated here. See Marsh v. Cupp, supra, 536 F.2d [1287] at 1289-92 (upholding use of two Allen charges under Jenkins’ ‘totality of circumstances’ test). It matters not that certain state and federal appellate courts, pursuant to their supervisory powers, banned the use of multiple Allen charges in prosecutions within their jurisdictions. See, e. g. United States v. Seawell, 550 F.2d 1159 , 1162 & n. 4 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing cases). We do not agree with those decisions, but, in any event, they were not based on the constitution, which, of course, is the only applicable legal source in this habeas corpus proceeding. See United States v. Seawell, supra, 550 F.2d at 1163 n. 9.” (footnote omitted)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ortiz v. Duckworth

2. “Indeed the defendant has a constitutionally protected interest in proceeding to a verdict and a hasty trial judge would commit error in failing to prompt the jury to a verdict.”

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