Brokenbrough v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Robertson v. State (1991), Weber v. State (1988)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 56 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Young · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · United States v. Hasting · Quercia v. United States · Geders v. United States
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Delaware courts will provide safeguards against a repetition of the same type of specific conduct that had been held to be error, albeit harmless error. A repetition of the same type or category of errors adversely affects the integrity of the judicial process. The standards of professional conduct in Delaware have never been and will never be measured by the lowest acceptable common denominator. We fully expect that our criticism here will not fall on deaf ears and that judicial admonition, even in the absence of reversal, will encourage the curtailment of the type of improper closing arguments we have been repeatedly called upon to .review. In the future, such conduct will not be tolerated by this Court and must not be permitted by trial courts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. State“Although the prosecutor operates within an adversary system, his duty is to seek justice, not merely convictions. “A prosecuting attorney represents all the people, including the defendant who was being tried. It is his duty to see that the State’s case is presented with earnestness and vigor, but it is equally his duty to see that justice be done by giving defendant a fair and impartial trial.” Bennett v. State, Del.Supr., 164 A.2d 442, 446 (1960). That same duty requires the prosecutor to refrain from legally objectionable tactics calculated to arouse the prejudices of the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Weddington v. State“Standard 3-5.6 Presentation of evidence. (b) A prosecutor should not knowingly and for the purpose of bringing inadmissible matter to the attention of the judge or jury offer inadmissible evidence, ask legally objectionable questions, or make other impermissible comments or arguments in the presence of the judge or jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walker v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.