Castillo v. State’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. “if the actual evidence presented at trial demonstrates that each offense was not established by separate and distinct facts.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jarrell v. State · Montgomery v. State

2. “it [was] possible, given these facts, that some jurors believed that Castillo committed the earlier dealing crime ... while other jurors believed that Castillo committed the dealing violation at his home later that same day.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Giddings v. State · Scuro v. State

3. “Recently, in [Richardson ], the Supreme Court held that a jury must unanimously agree regarding which crime a defendant committed. The facts in that case, however, were markedly different from the facts in the instant case. There, Richardson was charged with violating a federal law making it a crime for a person to engage "in a continuing criminal enterprise." The federal law defined a "continuing legal enterprise as a violation of the drug laws where that viola tion is a part of a continuing series of violations." The Court determined that it was error for the trial court to instruct the jury that they must agree that Richardson committed at least three violations, but that they did not have to agree upon which three violations he committed. The Court reasoned that it would be unfair to allow juries to avoid discussion of specific factual considerations when determining whether a defendant committed a violation. To do so would increase the danger that juries may conclude "that where there is smoke there must be fire," and to convict the defendant because he is a bad person.”

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