State v. James’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If there is more than one count in an indictment, the jury must find a verdict as to each count, unless it cannot agree on a verdict as to a count. We will therefore remand the case for a determination of whether the motion to sever was granted and, if not, for a proper disposition of the remaining charges.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 893 So. 2d 1009 - State v. Pitre · 903 So. 2d 1275 - State v. Hypolite

2. “In [State v.] Bannister, 726 So.2d at 1141 [97-48, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/27/99); 726 So.2d 1135, 1142 ], the trial court determined that the results of a written poll did not reflect a legal verdict, at which time a juror blurted out, “I have the tally right here ... you all have to vote the same way — you all voted upstairs.” The trial court stopped that juror, repeated its instructions, and polled the entire panel again. After two bench conferences, the trial court polled the jury a third time before it pronounced a legal verdict. The appellate court noted the error of not returning the panel for deliberation, but found it harmless, as the record did not indicate that the comments of the juror influenced any of the others to change their votes. In State v. Amato, 96-606 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/30/97) ; 698 So.2d 972 , writ denied, 97-2626 (La.2/20/98); 709 So.2d 772 , one juror wrote “no” on a written ballot, but after questioning from the trial court stated that he probably misunderstood the written form and that he meant to respond “yes.” Additionally, the jury foreman stated that the vote was unanimous at the time the verdict was reached. The appellate court found no error where “the record show[ed] beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdict on Count 1 was unanimous.” Id. at 688 — 89[988—89].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 901 So. 2d 1171 - State v. Williams

3. “It is well-settled that the victim's credibility is a matter for the fact finder to assess, and that the appellate courts will not second-guess such assessments, absent manifest error. State v. Bourque, 94-291 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/94) ; 649 So.2d 670 . In Bourque, we did overturn such an assessment, but only where the defendant presented credible alibi testimony in the face of questionable eye-witness testimony. (The only witnesses to the crime were a child and an adult who had consumed a large amount of alcohol before witnessing the incident.) In the present case, the victim was not a weak witness. She positively identified Defendant as her attacker....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 930 So. 2d 265 - State v. Pitree