Whorton v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 29 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““From time immemorial the emphasis with regard to jury instructions in this state has been placed on simplicity. ‘The function of instructions in this jurisdiction is only to state what the jury must believe from the evidence.. .in order to return a verdict in favor of the party who bears the burden of proof.’ Webster v. Commonwealth, Ky., 508 S.W.2d 33, 36 (1974). Thus we have sought to avoid abstract legal principles, presumptions, comments on the weight of the evidence, and references to the burden of proof, which is cast by the form of instruction requiring that in order to make an affirmative finding the jury must, on the basis of the evidence, believe certain specified facts to be true. This approach minimizes the possibility of intrusion by the judge into that particular area of decision-making which belongs exclusively to the jury, and it minimizes the possibility of error in that respect.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Raine v. Drasin

2. ““The system of instructing juries developed in Kentucky prohibits instructions on presumptions and permissible inferences. The theory is that to avoid undue influence by the trial judge on the fact finding process for or against either party the instructions should simply focus the attention of the jury on those ultimate facts which it must decide in order to reach a verdict. Consequently, the instructions are skeletal in form, given prior to closing argument and leave to the lawyers the task of fleshing them out in closing argument insofar as the eviden-tiary facts of the case, the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are concerned.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Raine v. Drasin

3. “Whorton’s use of a pistol in firing a shot into the ceiling of Jerry’s Restaurant did not constitute an offense separate from the lst-degree robbery charge for which he was being tried and was convicted.... Whorton could have been found guilty of lst-degree robbery either on the basis of his having been armed with a deadly weapon or on the basis of his having used or threatened to use that weapon. Neither, however, can be split off from the other and be treated as a separate offense. It was error to submit to the jury the charge of wanton endangerment growing out of the firing of a shot into the ceiling.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Norris v. Commonwealth