State v. Encalarde’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. “At 6:39 P.M., the jury retired to deliberate. At 8:08 P.M., the jury returned and requested additional information from the judge regarding the law on misdemeanor manslaughter. The judge provided additional information and the jury again retired to deliberate -at 8:26 P.M. | aSometime shortly thereafter, the foreman contacted the minute clerk and explained that the jury wished to hear some illustrations of the judge’s previous definitions of misdemeanor manslaughter. The minute clerk informed the trial judge that the jury requested additional information and that the jury was leaning toward an acquittal. When the jury was returned to the courtroom, the trial judge, however, asked the foreman whether the jury had reached a verdict. The foreman, Mr. Roland Gordon, responded, “No. judge. We are unable to reach a verdict.” The court continued, “Do you feel that any further deliberations would serve any purpose?” And, Mr. Gordon responded, “I don’t believe so.” Judge Perez then asked the foreman if there was any movement among the jurors. Mr. Gordon responded, “No. We had movement earlier, but I don’t’ think we’re going to get any further movement.” The foreman also told the judge there had been no movement within the last forty-five minutes. The trial judge, without questioning the individual jurors and over adamant objections by defense counsel, granted a mistrial. The entire period of deliberations lasted slightly longer than two hours.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 206 So. 3d 990 - State v. Copelin

2. ““It is universally held that a dismissal because of inability of the jury to reach a verdict is no bar to a subsequent prosecution,” [Official Revision Comment “C” to Article 775,] citing two U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Thus, although the manifest necessity test employed by the federal courts and the categorical listing provided in Article 775 may be slightly different, it appears that if a trial judge grants a mistrial when the jury is hopelessly deadlocked in either a federal or a Louisiana court, retrial of the defendant is not barred by the double jeopardy clause. The converse would also be true: if a trial judge improperly grants a mistrial against the objection of the defendant in either a federal court or a Louisiana Court, the double jeopar dy cause would prohibit retrial of the defendant for the same offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 206 So. 3d 990 - State v. Copelin

3. “• The trial court failed to question the individual jurors or the jury as a group; instead, the trial court relied on the foreman’s statements that the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Id. at 992 . Also, “the foreman' told the trial judge Imthat there had been no movement among the jurors for the past forty-five minutes, indicating that there had been movement prior to that time.” Id. • “The trial judge refused to allow the defense counsel to speak and present alternatives to a mistrial.” Id. • The trial lasted six and one-half days. Id. • Jury deliberations lasted less than two hours and fifteen minutes. Stated otherwise,-the trial court " declared a mistrial at 9:28 P.M., after eight hours of closing arguments, jury charges, and jury deliberations. Moreover, the jurors had not had supper. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 206 So. 3d 990 - State v. Copelin