Cyprian v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Q. Now referring to the statement that Counsel-I mean, that you just indicated to us previously about she would probably be unsure to identify an individual, is it unusual after an event like this to give a description and say that I many [sic] not be able to identify an individual or they may be unable to identify the individual? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I object to this. It is clearly irrelevant, plus out of the witness’ scope and calls for speculation. [[Image here]] THE COURT: I will sustain the objection as phrased. BY [PROSECUTOR]: Have you investigated robberies and offenses against persons before this case? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And would it be safe to say that a lot of those cases people were upset, frightened people made contact with— [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I will object. That is irrelevant, what happens in other cases. THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. [[Image here]] [PROSECUTOR]: Let me ask you this, is it unusual, based upon your police experience, which is how many years? A. Seven and a half, sir. Q. Based upon your police experience, would someone say initially they may not be able to identify someone— [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I object to this as calling for information not relevant to this case and calls for speculation. THE COURT: Overrule your objection. BY [PROSECUTOR]: Is it unusual for someone to say that they may not be able to identify someone that in the initial incident and then identify someone in a lineup, show up or photograph”

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

2. “[STATE]. Sir, it’s not uncommon for victims of a crime like this to remember things, evidence later? [DEFENSE]. Objection as to relevancy. [COURT], Overruled. Well. Maybe you want to qualify it before I let you go into that area. [STATE]. Sir, you have been in law enforcement 20 years— [DEFENSE]. Excuse me. I object to what other victims in other crimes experienced. It has no' relevancy to this case. These victims were here. Other victims are not here. [STATE]. It’s directly relevant on their ability to give a description. [COURT], I’ll overrule the objection. [STATE]. You have been a law enforcement officer 20 years you said? A. Correct. Q. You have come in contact with a lot of armed robberies? A. Yes. Q. And victims of crimes such as this and violence such as this? A. That’s correct. Q. As such you have become aware of descriptions that victims give at the scene, correct? A. That’s correct. Q. There may be later descriptions or other evidence that they might remember, correct? A. That’s correct. Q. Isn’t it true it’s not unusual for them to remember additional evidence as time goes on? A. That’s true. Q. Different than what they might remember at the scene— A. Yes. Q.-when they are still affected by the crime? A. That is true.”

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