Lucas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “and he said that he was not. There is nothing to suggest that anyone associated with the prosecution threatened or intimated anything to A.L. about deportation, that anyone promised to help A.L. with his immigration status, or that A.L. had a subjective belief that cooperating with the prosecution would somehow benefit him with respect to his status. When A.L. was asked whether greater cooperation with law enforcement made it less likely that they would contact federal immigration authorities about him, he said:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 240 Md. App. 156 - Kazadi v. State

2. “). In these circumstances, the trial court was within its considerable discretion to disallow cross-examination of A.L. about his immigration status. See ... Lemons v. State , 270 Ga. App. 743 , 749, 608 S.E.2d 15 (2004) (defendant was not entitled to cross-examine victim witnesses about their illegal immigration status where the record showed that the State”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 240 Md. App. 156 - Kazadi v. State

3. “Like most questions about the admissibility of evidence, the scope of cross-examination is committed in the first instance to the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review a limitation of cross-examination only for an abuse of that discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 347 Ga. App. 810 - CRUZ v. the STATE.