State v. Stevenson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “require a defendant to comment on another witness' veracity ... invade the province of the jury, create the risk that the jury may conclude that, in order to acquit the defendant, it must find that the other witnesses lied, and distort the state's burden of proof.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beaugureau v. State · Jenkins v. State

2. ““[Assistant State’s Attorney]: And finally, what about his drug problem? . . . Think about it. Who are the people that commit burglaries? Often [they are] the people with drug habits, drug users. Of course, the defendant had to commit crimes. “[Defendant]: Objection, Your Honor. “The Court: I will overrule that objection. “[Assistant State’s Attorney]: Of course, the defendant had to commit crimes. He had his drug habit to support. If you honestly believe that someone hooked on crack cocaine can support his habit by getting money from his girlfriend [who is] a waitress at [the International House of Pancakes], And how many friends could this defendant con to lend him money? Maybe once or twice, but for someone who is hooked on crack cocaine? . . . Presumably, he needed a lot more money than his friends or family would provide. Breaking into other peoples’ houses is a lot quicker money.””

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

3. ““[Assistant State’s Attorney]: Didn’t you say before thatyou never committed any burglaries? “[Defendant]: Yes, I did. “[Assistant State’s Attorney]: And you can read and write, is that correct, sir? “[Defendant]: Yes, I can. “[Assistant State’s Attorney]: And, presumably, you understood your rights when Officer Durkin gave them to you? “[Defendant]: He didn’t read me my rights, ma’am. “[Assistant State’s Attorney]: Okay. So when he testified that he read you your rights and that you initialed them, that was a lie? “[Defendant]: He did not read me my rights. “[Assistant State’s Attorney]: So you are saying the officer lied? “[Defendant]: Yes, I am.””

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