Brinker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"While the differing verdict may appear anomalous in the first instance, we do not speculate on inconsistent jury verdicts, Dorsey v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 260, 269 ; Hicks v. State (1981), Ind., 426 N.E.2d 411, 414 . It is not within our purview to attempt to interpret the thought process of the jury. Douglas v. State (1982), Ind., 441 N.E.2d 957, 962 . Consistency in the verdict is not necessary. Each count is regarded as if it were charged separately. Dunn v. United States (1981), 284 U.S. 390, 393 , 52 S.Ct. 189, 190 , 76 L.Ed. 356 ; Hicks, 426 N.E.2d at 413 ; Douglas, 441 N.E.2d at 962 ; Anderson v. State (1983), Ind. App., 452 N.E.2d 178, 177 . That the verdict may have been the result of a compromise is possible, but the verdict cannot be upset by speculation or inquiry into such matters. Dunn, 284 U.S. at 394 , 52 S.Ct. at 191 ; see also Sylvester v. State (1985), Ind., 484 N.E.2d 1 ."”

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