Bardonner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Criminal defense counsel are no different than civil defense counsel with respect to the search for “truth” in that, in a civil case, when the plaintiff fails to present evidence on a material element, it is defense counsel’s duty to ask for a judgment in his client’s favor. Civil defense counsel has no obligation to volunteer evidence to prove the plaintiffs case, and neither does defense counsel when the prosecutor fails to present evidence of defendant’s guilt with respect to all elements of a crime. The only purpose for the prosecutor’s comments on the respective roles of defense and prosecution is to prejudice the jurors into viewing the prosecutor as a “good guy” and the defense counsel as a “bad guy.” We think this is an unfair tactic which not only negates the defendant’s presumption of innocence, but also runs afoul of Ind. Prof. Conduct Rule 3.4, which requires fairness to opposing party and counsel, and prohibits an attorney from alluding to matters that the lawyer does not reasonably believe are relevant or will not be supported by the facts in issue. Here, the issue before the jury was whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not the jurors’ responsibility to make a finding as to the role of the prosecutor and defense counsel or to determine the character of the defense counsel. This information is certainly not relevant to the case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brandon Brummett v. State of Indiana · Bruce Ryan v. State of Indiana

2. “I told you earlier that there were different roles in this case. Defense counsel has certain roles and I have certain roles. Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure that they do not convict the innocent. They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of a crime. To this extent, our so called adversary system is not adversary at all. Nor should it be. But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth. Our system assigns a much different mission. He must be as interested in preventing the conviction of the innocent, but as in a voluntary plea of guilty, we also insist that he defend the client whether he is innocent or guilty. The State has the obligation to present the evidence. Defense counsel need not present any-need present nothing, even if he knows what the truth is. I don't think there's any question, Ladies and Gentlemen, that the State has proven its case. I think everyone here knows what the truth is.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Roller v. State · Lainhart v. State

3. “[The prosecutor] may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But while he may strike hard blows he's not aft] liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.”

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