Manuel v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`The most common evidentiary device is the entirely permissive inference or presumption, which allows — but does not require — the trier of fact to infer the elemental fact from proof by the prosecutor of the basic one and which places no burden of any kind on the defendant. See, e.g. , Barnes v. United States , supra, [412 U.S.], at 840 n. 3 [ 93 S.Ct. at 2360 n. 3]. . . . Because this permissive presumption leaves the trier of fact free to credit or reject the inference and does not shift the burden of proof, it affects the application of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard only if, under the facts of the case, there is no rational way the trier could make the connection permitted by the inference. For only in that situation is there any risk that an explanation of the permissible inference to a jury, or its use by a jury, has caused the presumptively rational factfinder to make an erroneous factual determination. "`A mandatory presumption is a far more troublesome evidentiary device. For it may affect not only the strength of the "no reasonable doubt" burden but also the placement of that burden; it tells the trier that he or they must find the elemental fact upon proof of the basic fact, at least unless the defendant has come forward with some evidence to rebut the presumed connection between the two facts. E.g. , Turner v. United States , [ 396 U.S. 398 ,] 401-402, and n. 1 [ 90 S.Ct. 642 , 644-45 , 24 L.Ed.2d 610 (1970)]; Leary v. United States , 395 U.S. 6 , 30 [”

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

2. “Court of Ulster County, New York v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 , 156-60 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 , 2224-26 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979) (footnotes omitted, emphasis in original).”

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