Coleman v. State’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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[2-5] In Indiana the choice of whether or not the trial court instructs the jury on the defendant’s failure to testify belongs to the defendant. To preserve error on this issue, the defendant must request an instruction. Hunt v. State, (1973), 260 Ind. 375, 381 , 296 N.E.2d 116, 120 . If the request is made, the trial court should advise the jury that it should not consider the defendant’s failure to testify. Carter v. Kentucky (1981), 450 U.S. 288, 303-305 , 101 S.Ct. 1112, 1121-22 , 67 L.Ed.2d 241, 254 ; Lucas v. State (1980), [274] Ind. [635], 413 N.E.2d 578, 583 . If the trial court does not comply with the defendant’s request, we will reverse the conviction, unless the State shows that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Lyda v. State (1979), [272] Ind. [15], 395 N.E.2d 776, 781 . Conversely, the trial court may not give an instruction on the defendant’s failure to testify over his timely objection. Dooley v. State (1979), [271] Ind. [404], 393 N.E.2d 154, 156 (cases cited therein). Our decisions in this area do not support the defendant’s assignment of error.””

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