State v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 51 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.”

   15 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Holmes · State v. Turner

2. “if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A `reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 684 So. 2d 368 - State v. Seals · 688 So. 2d 473 - State v. Hawkins

3. “If you entertain any reasonable doubt as to any fact or element necessary to constitute the defendant’s guilt, it is your sworn duty to give him the benefit of that doubt and return a verdict of acquittal. Even where the evidence demonstrates a probability of guilt, yet if it does not establish it beyond a reasonable doubt, you must acquit the accused. This doubt must be a reasonable one, that is, one founded upon a real, tangible, substantial basis, and not upon mere caprice, fancy or conjecture. It must be such a doubt as would give rise to grave uncertainty, raised in your minds by reason of the unsatisfactory character of evidence; one that would make you feel that you had not an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the defendant’s guilt. If, after giving a fair and impartial consideration to all the facts in the case, you find the evidence unsatisfactory upon any single point indispensably necessary to constitute the defendant’s guilt, this would give rise to such a reasonable doubt as would justify you in rendering a verdict of not guilty. The prosecution must establish guilt by legal and sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but the rule does not go further and require a preponderance of testimony. It is encumbent upon the State to prove the offense charged, or legally included in the - Information, to your satisfaction and beyond a reasonable doubt. It is such a doubt as a reasonable man would seriously entertain. It is a serious doubt, for which you co”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Johnson v. Cain