Warner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 16 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. “We held that the State could not bring more serious charges against the defendant when nothing has occurred exeept the successful exercise of the right to a fair trial. Elaborating on the holding, Justice Prentice wrote: Under such cireumstances, fundamental fairness precludes a requirement that Defendant show vindictive motivation or that the State be permitted to show its absence. Were we to hold otherwise, an accused in Defendant's predicament would be required to elect whether he would submit to a trial had without due process of law or to a trial wherein there was a potential for a much more severe penalty. Our concept of justice simply will not sanction an implicit form of bargaining where the accused must purchase due process of law. In other words, unless there is new evidence or information discovered to warrant additional charges, the potential for prosecutorial vindictiveness is too great for courts to allow the State to bring additional charges against a defendant who successfully moves for a mistrial.”

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

2. “juror misconduct will warrant a new trial only when the misconduct is both 'gross' and 'harmed the defendant' "). The trial court in Warner concluded that the juror did not deliberately withhold information, that she was not biased, and that the defendant received a fair trial. On appeal, we found no abuse of disceretion, declined to find gross misconduct, and concluded that there was "very little likelihood that the juror's omitted response in any way affected the verdiet.”

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

3. “Generally, proof that a juror was biased against the defendant or lied during voir dire entitles a defendant to a new trial. A defendant seeking a new trial because of juror misconduct must show gross misconduct that probably harmed the defendant. We review the trial judge's determination on these points for abuse of discretion.”

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