State v. Singh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]n addressing the jury, [c]ounsel must be allowed a generous latitude in argument . . . and something must be allowed for the zeal of counsel in the heat of argument. . . . The occasional use of rhetorical devices is simply fair argument. . . . If every rhetorical remark made by counsel were ground for a reversal, we again stress that comparatively few verdicts would stand, since in the ardor of advocacy, and in the excitement of trial, even the most experienced counsel are occasionally carried away by this temptation. . . . For an illustration of how natural it is to use such rhetorical devices, we need look only to defense counsel's closing argument.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Saunders, No. Cr97-009 80 74 S (May 21, 2001)

2. “[i]t is not improper for the prosecutor to point out how the evidence was presented, what evidence was presented, what reasonable conclusions could or should be made by the jury and what factual inferences could be drawn by the jury from the facts found.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Saunders, No. Cr97-009 80 74 S (May 21, 2001)

3. “Even if the challenged remarks were inappropriate because they were made as an appeal for sympathy, they were not egregious or part of a pattern of misconduct throughout the trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Saunders, No. Cr97-009 80 74 S (May 21, 2001)