Maul v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “must constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm must be substantial, and the resulting error must deny the defendant fundamental due process.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Deane v. State · Whatley v. State

2. “Direct evidence means evidence that directly proves a fact, without an inference, and which in itself, if true, conclusively establishes that fact. Circumstantial evidence means evidence that proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn. An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts. It is NOT necessary that facts be proved by direct evidence. Both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of proof. Neither is necessarily entitled to any greater weight than the other. You should give the greatest weight to the evidence which convinces you most strongly of its truthfulness. There is no requirement that the State present direct evidence. Furthermore, a guilty verdict may be supported by circumstantial evidence if it is sufficient to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt.”

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

3. “The defendant also attempts to overcome procedural default by asserting that the trial court's omission constitutes 'fundamental error.' It does not.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ziad Abd v. State of Indiana