May v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Alternate jurors in the order in which they are called shall replace jurors who, prior to the time the jury returns its verdict, become or are found to be unable or disqualified to perform their duties.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Curtis S. Gridley v. State of Indiana · Morgan v. State

2. “As such, our review of the trial court's decisions in these matters is highly deferential.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Curtis S. Gridley v. State of Indiana · Morgan v. State

3. ““Despite the lack of clear evidence that the security guard and the jurors discussed the trial proceedings and despite the three jurors’ assertions that their impartiality was intact, the enhancement of the credibility of the prosecution’s witness seems highly probable, regardless of whether the jurors themselves realized it at the time. As stated in Judge Miller’s dissent to the Court of Appeals decision in the present case: ‘[A]s it pertains to the issue of witness credibility, the prejudice which results from a juror’s association with the prosecutorial -witness can be an invisible prejudice (or bias) which festers within the subconscious mind of the fact finder. The taint caused by an improprietous association may be impossible to remove. ‘[T]he complained of conduct in the present case was of such a prejudicial and inflammatory nature-based on the probable persuasive effect of the conduct on the jury’s ability to assess witness credibility-as to place Kelley in a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected and ... no action other than a mistrial could have remedied the perilous situation into which he was placed.’ (slip opinion, dissenting opinion at 4-5) (emphasis in original). “We agree. The trial judge abused his discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial. We therefore grant transfer, vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals, reverse the trial court and remand for a new trial.””

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