Scott v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 9 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The vindication of community outrage has been criticized by this Court recently in Franks v. State, 636 P.2d 361 (1981). The statements now before us are reprehensible for the reason that the prosecutor has attempted to cast himself in a light which is inaccurate. He does not represent the victim, the jurors, nor the interests of society. His duty is to prosecute the defendant for a crime against the victim, in violation of society’s laws, and in which the jurors are the determiners of fact.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Robison v. Maynard

2. “However the attorneys are not permitted to make statements of the law and seek to get a statement in advance of the trial as to how the jurors would decide the case on a given set of facts. In the examination of a venireman ... neither party has the right to assume the facts of the case in detail, and assume that the court will instruct the jury in a particular way ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mitchell v. State