People v. Lambright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The fact that a newspaper published an account of testimony that the trial court ruled inadmissible raises serious questions as to the propriety of such reporting. Although the protection of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution may extend in some circumstances to press coverage of judicial proceedings, such rights may be outweighed by the defendant's right to a fair trial when the latter right is in clear and present danger of obstruction by the news media. (See Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 334-336 [ 66 S.Ct. 1029 , 90 L.Ed. 1295, 1297-1298 ]; Bridges v. State of California, 314 U.S. 252, 259-263 [ 62 S.Ct. 190 , 86 L.Ed. 192, 201-203 ]. See generally, Due Process for Whom — Newspaper or Defendant?, Comment, 4 Stan.L.Rev. 101.) The danger was apparent in this case where the trial judge excused the jury from the courtroom to consider certain evidence and ruled that the evidence was not for the jury's consideration. As stated in People v. Stokes, 103 Cal. 193, 197 [ 37 P. 207 , 42 Am.St.Rep. 102 ], "It is exceedingly unfortunate that a newspaper should publish such an article pending the trial of an important criminal case. Newspaper comments of this character are well calculated to interfere with the due and proper administration of justice. The jurors should not have read the article. The newspaper should not have published it. The publication of such articles during the pendency of important trials serves no good purpose, but, on the contrary, tends t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 79 Wash. 2d 69 - STATE EX REL. SNOHOMISH CTY. v. Sperry

2. “In a case where the jury is correctly admonished not to receive newspaper or other extrajudicial reports of the trial, it may be a proper exercise of discretion for the trial court to refuse to poll the jury regarding any specific news media account of the trial. [Citations.] In such a situation it may be presumed in the absence of a showing of misconduct that the jury heeded the court's admonition.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 26 Cal. 3d 814 - People v. Lanphear

3. “Since the trial court expressly authorized the jury to read newspaper accounts of the trial, it is reasonably probable that some of the jurors did so and that their misconduct, even though innocent, affected the result. Accordingly, the error was prejudicial. ( People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 79 Wash. 2d 69 - STATE EX REL. SNOHOMISH CTY. v. Sperry