Taylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 16 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The purpose of an information is to guarantee certain protections to the criminally accused. First, the charging document must set forth the elements of the offense charged in order to apprise the defendant with reasonable certainty of the accusation against him. Second, the offense charged must be described with sufficient particularity to permit a defense of double jeopardy in the event of a subsequent prosecution.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bilbrey · Austill v. State

2. “First, the jury asked about the difference between the three different charges and whether they must convict on an all or nothing basis. The judge replied that he could not discuss the differences between the charges and informed them that they could re-read the instructions for guidance. The judge then answered the second part of their question by saying that the court would sort out any duplicity in verdicts at the time of sentencing, and that they should look at each charge individually and determine whether the State has met its burden. The jury again asked for clarification, and the judge told them that they could enter a guilty or not guilty verdict on each of the counts independently. Then the jury asked if any of the charges weighed more heavily than the others because of the order of the instructions, to which the judge informed them that there was no priority. Next the jury asked if “deliver” is “a hard enough fact.” After the judge expressed that he was not sure of the question, the prosecutor stated that “Deliver is not separately defined.” (R. 852). Finally, the jury asked if the instructions were to be considered line by line or item by item. The judge stated that they need to be considered as a whole. He then clarified his earlier statement about the court sorting out duplicities' by affirming that what the jury does is binding on the court, that the three charges are separate, and that they are to infer nothing else from what he said. (R. 850-854).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jason Fields v. State of Indiana

3. “under the facts of this case, we have the proverbial gap in the instructions because this jury cannot get passed [sic] [it.] Id. What the judge says a few lines later about the jury not being able to reach a verdict should be considered in reference to this statement about the gap in the law. What the trial court judge was saying was that the gap in the law here was a crucial one, and not to bridge that gap is to leave the jury to decide for itself what the law is. The additional instruction is used to get the jury past an impasse. The court believed not that the jury was deadlocked, but that it was confused as to what the law was. The court believed that further clarification was appropriate, if not absolutely necessary. As to specific references to a deadlock, the court mentions the inability to reach a verdict only onee, while mentioning multiple times the confusion of the jury and the fact that another instruction would relieve that confusion. See R. 486-88. "Deadlock”

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