State v. Litzau’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In determining whether or not it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in knowing possession of methamphetamine, you should consider all the evidence presented. The law allows, but does not require, you to find knowing possession from proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the driver or in control of a passenger automobile and the methamphetamine was present in the automobile. If you so find beyond a reasonable doubt, you may, but are not required to, find that the defendant knowingly possessed methamphetamine.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Flowers · State v. Porte

2. “because it effectively told the jury in this case that the judge thought there was sufficient evidence for a conviction.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Flowers · State v. Porte

3. “Such instructions “ ‘are undesirable in that they tend to inject argument into the judge’s charge and lengthen it unnecessarily.’ ” [Olson, 482 N.W.2d at 215 ] (quoting Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the Ninth Circuit, 48 (1989 ed.)). Such instructions also improperly influence the jury not only by isolating particular facts but also by giving a particular step of logic “the official legal imprimatur of the state.” Charles Collier, The Improper Use of Presumptions in Recent Criminal Law Adjudication, 38 Stan. L. Rev. 423 , 456 (1986).”

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