State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “an indirect reference to the defendant's failure to take the stand is reversible only when the prosecutor intended to emphasize it.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 249 So. 3d 260 - State v. Alridge · 574 So. 2d 486 - State v. Fleming

2. “While evidence that a Cl set up or participated in defendant’s crime will justify a disclosure of his identity, his furnishing of information to police, which is used by them to obtain a search |2warrant, is not in itself an exceptional circumstance requiring disclosure. State v. McDonald [MacDonald], 390 So.2d 1276 (La.1980). When the Cl is nothing more than an informer, and does not participate in the criminal transaction which forms the basis of the prosecution, no disclosure of his identity is required. Roviaro v. United States, supra; State v. Williams, 347 So.2d 184 (La.1977). In State v. Badie, 510 So.2d 120 (La. App. 4th Cir.1987), writ denied, 513 So.2d 826 (La.1987), this court reversed a trial court ruling compelling the State to disclose the identity of a Cl. The facts in Badie were remarkably similar to those in the case at bar. Police received information from a Cl that the defendant was selling cocaine at a certain address. Police arranged for the Cl to make a controlled buy from the defendant. The Cl was given money, and officers watched as he entered the premises in question. The Cl came out five minutes later with a small bag of cocaine. During continued surveillance of the building, police observed two more persons come and go. In the next two weeks the same Cl made two more controlled buys of cocaine from the defendant at that location. Based upon these facts a search warrant was issued and, based upon the drugs found at defendant’s residence when it was s”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 696 So. 2d 580 - State v. Degruy

3. “BY MR. GARDNER: The Defendant has the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. He has the right not to testify in this proceeding, and the upshot of that is that you cannot hold it against him should he fail to testify. And it’s always something that, you know, we want to hear both sides or whatever. That’s not how it works. BY MR. MCCURDY: Your Honor, I object and again move for a mistrial, because this statement is made, that we would all like to hear, is made solely to focus the jury’s attention on the— BY MR. GARDNER: No, Judge— BY MR. MCCURDY: —fact that the defendant may exercise his 5th Amendment right in this case. BY THE COURT: The Court would deny the request for a mistrial, note an objection to protect the record on the behalf of the Defense. * * * * * * BY MR. GARDNER: Likewise, the defendant does have the right to testify should he choose, and if he does testify, would you say, “Well, he’s the defendant; he’s been accused of a most serious crime; and he’s been indicted, therefore, if he gets up there and says, I didn’t do it, or if he gets up there and says, there was a reason that I did it or whatever — ” BY MR. MCCURDY: Your Honor, I renew my objection. This is not reasonable, dwelling on this issue. BY THE COURT: I’ll overrule that. BY MR. MCCURDY: And to say that we’d like to hear from both sides is an invitation, a dare to the defendant to testify. BY THE COURT: Thank you. I’ll note your objection for the record again. The request for a mistrial is de”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 589 So. 2d 1163 - State v. Trimble