State v. Salmond’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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. “Ordinarily justice is better subserved where parties are tried together. . . . Joint trials of persons jointly indicted or informed against are the rule, and separate trials the exception resting in the discretion of the court. . . . A separate trial will be ordered where the defenses of the accused are antagonistic, or evidence will be introduced against one which will not be admissible against others, and it clearly appears that a joint trial will probably be prejudicial to the rights of one or more of the accused. . . . [T]he phrase prejudicial to the rights of the [accused] means something more than that a joint trial will probably be less advantageous to the accused than separate trials.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 16307 - State v. Miloro, No. Fst 93649 (Dec. 17, 2002)

2. “These factors include: (1) whether the charges involve discrete, easily distinguishable factual scenarios; (2) whether the crimes were of a violent nature or concerned brutal or shocking conduct on the defendant's part; and (3) the duration and complexity of the trial. . . . If any or all of these factors are present, a reviewing court must decide whether the trial court's jury CT Page 16308 instructions cured any prejudice that might have occurred.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 16307 - State v. Miloro, No. Fst 93649 (Dec. 17, 2002)

3. “(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 575 , quoting State v. Booth , 250 Conn. 611 , 620 , 737 A.2d 404 (1999), cert. denied sub. nom. Brown v. Connecticut , 529 U.S. 1060 , 120 S.Ct. 1568 , 146 L.Ed.2d 471 (2000).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 16307 - State v. Miloro, No. Fst 93649 (Dec. 17, 2002)