Krzeminski v. Perini’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defense at trial never argued that the defendant should be found not guilty. It argued that the defendant should be found not guilty by reason of insanity, or alternatively, guilty of a lesser included offense of first degree murder. The defendant admitted the murder to numerous other people and recounted the details of the murder from the witness stand to the jury. Five people testified that the petitioner admitted the murder to them. A friend of the petitioner testified that on two different occasions, the petitioner stated that he was going to kill his wife. The only effect of the judge's instruction that the jury could not acquit the defendant was to minimize the possibility of jury nullification. Only an irrational jury could have acquitted the defendant outright.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Glenn v. Dallman · State v. Delva

2. “'so long as a jury is instructed that the state has the burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no due process violation' if the state places the affirmative defense of insanity upon the defendant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Howze v. Marshall · Aldridge v. Rc Marshall

3. “No matter how overwhelming the evidence, a judge cannot direct a verdict of guilty or instruct a jury that it must find the defendant guilty. See e.g. Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 , 105 (15 S.Ct. 273, 294, 39 L.Ed. 343) (1895); Schwachter v. United States, 237 F.2d 640 , 644 (6th Cir. 1956) and cases cited. Any doubt that this rule is constitutionally based was removed by In re Winship, supra, 397 U.S. at 364, (90 S.Ct. at 1072) which mandates that the prosecution prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the finder of fact. In a case tried to a jury, that body must make the decision as to guilt or innocence. A judge cannot order a jury to find the defendant guilty of something. The trial judge's instruction in this case did precisely that.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States Ross v. Franzen