State v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The language included in many Louisiana cases concerning a requirement that the accused be advised of his possible sentencing exposure citing Boykin , apparently derives from footnote 7 in Boykin , in which the Supreme Court quotes from a Pennsylvania state court case as a demonstration of that court's approach to the issue. The Boykin decision itself does not require such advice; it only requires that a defendant be informed of the three rights enumerated above [right against self-incrimination, to jury trial, and of confrontation] . . . ... [Defendant] ... argues that the guilty plea is invalid because the trial court did not advise him of the sentencing range. As previously noted, Boykin requires no such advice. Moreover, it is not clear what, if any, explanation is owed to a defendant about his maximum penalty exposure, only that an understanding of the exposure is important to a defendant in some cases.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 627 So. 2d 781 - State v. Bradford

2. “The Boykin decision itself does not require such advice; it only requires that a defendant be informed of the three rights enumerated above [right against self-incrimination, to jury trial, and of confrontation]. `Its scope has not been expanded to include advising the defendant of any other rights which he may have, nor of the possible consequences of his actions.' State v. Nuccio, 454 So.2d 93, 104 (La.1984). Defendant argues that the guilty plea is invalid because the trial judge did not advise him of the sentencing range. As previously noted, Boykin requires no such advice. Moreover, it is not clear what, if any, explanation is owed to a defendant about his maximum penalty exposure, only that an understanding of the exposure is important to a defendant in some cases. State v. Haney, 434 So.2d 1264 , 1266 n. 3 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 627 So. 2d 781 - State v. Bradford

3. “The trial judge reminded defendant that there had been a preliminary examination and asked him if defendant had been present for it and if the testimony given at that examination had been true and correct. To both questions, defendant answered,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 601 So. 2d 775 - State v. Harris