Bieghler v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 119 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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"1) the use to which the prosecution puts the postarrest silence; 2) who elected to pursue the line of questioning; 3) the quantum of other evidence indicative of guilt; 4) the intensity and frequency of the reference; and 5) the availability to the trial judge of an opportunity to grant a motion for mistrial or to give curative instructions."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mauricio v. State · Walter L v. State

2. “we 'consider only that evidence most favorable to the judgment together with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.'”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sebastian Durstock v. State of Indiana · Crystal G. Smith v. State of Indiana

3. “"There is no authority, however, for the proposition that juries who make recommendations to judges who then make the ultimate sentencing decision need make written findings so long as the trial judge submits written findings adequate for review particularly where, as in our statutes, the trial judge operates as the ultimate sentencer rather than simply as a reviewer of the jury's recommendation. The trial judge is the only authority allowed by statute to determine the proper penalty which he or she does according to the standards prescribed by the statute. The trial judge in sentencing must adhere to a high degree of specificity and must take care that the requisite written reasons for the imposition of a sentence recite the actual facts relating to the character of the offense and of the offender. Schiro v. State (1983), Ind., 451 N.E.2d 1047 , cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1003 , 104 S.Ct. 510 , 78 L.Ed.2d 699 .... This Court previously has concluded that our statutory procedure satisfies all requirements for written findings announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in order to provide for a meaningful appellate review by demanding such findings from the judge. Brewer v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 338 , 417 N.E.2d 889 , cert. denied, (1982), 458 U.S. 1122 , 102 S.Ct. 3510 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1384 ; Judy v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 145 , 416 N.E.2d 95 ."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Farber v. State · Fleenor v. State