626 So. 2d 913 - State v. Bibb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

60 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A defendant’s constitutional due process right of fair trial by an impartial jury may be violated if the trial jurors are subjected to influences which cause them verdict to be influenced by circumstances other than the evidence developed at trial. Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 472 , 85 S.Ct. 546, 549 , 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965); State v. Marchand, 362 So.2d 1090, 1092-1093 (La.1978). In the constitutional sense, trial by jury in a criminal case necessarily implies at the very least that the “evidence developed” against a defendant shall come from the witness stand in a public courtroom where there is full judicial protection of the defendant’s right of confrontation, of cross-examination, and of counsel. Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. at 473 , 85 S.Ct. at 550 . Initially in any trial, there is a presumption of jury impartiality. United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 714 (5th Cir.), cert denied, 444 U.S. 827 , 100 S.Ct. 51 , 62 L.Ed.2d 34 (1979). However, any unauthorized communication, contact, or tampering directly or indirectly, made by a non-juror with a juror during a trial about the matter pending before the jury is deemed presumptively prejudicial, if not made in accordance with rules of court and the instructions and directions of the court made during the trial, with full knowledge of all the parties. The presumption is not conclusive, but the burden rests heavily upon the state to establish, after notice to and hearing of the defendant, that such contact with the j”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2 So. 3d 622 - State v. Anderson · 833 So. 2d 476 - State v. Collins

2. “... whether lay testimony controverting the expert opinion was offered ( State v. Claibon, 395 So.2d at 774 ), whether the experts specifically concluded that the defendant could not discern between right and wrong at the time of the crime ( State v. Noble, 425 So.2d 734, 737 (La.1983); State v. Claibon, 395 So.2d at 774 ), to what extent the expert testimony was premised on the self-serving revelations of the defendant ( State v. Parker, 416 So.2d 545, 551 (La.1982)), to what extent the expert analysis is controverted by other expert analysis ( State v. Heath, 447 So.2d 570, 576 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 448 So.2d 1302 (La.1984)), the duration of the expert's contact with the defendant and whether he had interviewed the defendant previous to the offense ( State v. Guidry, 450 So.2d 50, 52 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984), writ denied, 476 So.2d 344 (La.1985), the chronological proximity of the expert examination to the offense, and whether the experts were treating physicians. State v. Nealy, 450 So.2d 634, 639 (La.1984). Insofar as defendant's actions, such factors as whether the defendant fled, disposed of evidence, and deliberately planned and executed the offense are pertinent. State v. Pravata, 522 So.2d [606] at 613-614 [(La.App. 1 Cir.1988)]. State v. Bibb, 626 So.2d at 934 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 648 So. 2d 962 - State v. Franklin · 683 So. 2d 748 - State v. Pittman

3. “Although an accused in Louisiana has the right to full voir dire examination of prospective jurors, the scope of the examination during voir dire shall be within the discretion of the trial court. However, because the right to full voir dire examination has a constitutional basis, wide latitude should be given the defendant to test prospective jurors' competency and impartiality. Nevertheless, the purpose of voir dire examination is not to elicit jurors' opinions concerning particular evidence to be offered at trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 728 So. 2d 416 - State v. Thibodeaux · 965 So. 2d 1 - Hoskins v. State