Amin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 24 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The evidence established that others were present in the house at the time Campbell made her decision and did not witness Campbell's refusing to play darts or witness Boyer's [sic] threatening Campbell if she cared for her child. Campbell made no attempt to seek medical advice, take her daughter to the hospital, dress her in loose clothing, or give her medications either for pain or to prevent infection. Campbell testified that she recognized that the burns were extensive and serious and required medical care, and she decided not to seek medical care because her past abuse caused her to realize that she would provoke Boyer. We agree with the district court that this record does not establish that she faced present, imminent or impending death or serious bodily harm, and the district court did not err in refusing to give her defense instruction.”

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

2. “"`The securing and preservation of an impartial jury goes to the very essence of a fair trial. See Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 362-63 , 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1522 , 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 620 (1966); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 , 85 S.Ct. 1628 , 14 L.Ed.2d 543 , reh. den., 382 U.S. 875 , 86 S.Ct. 18 , 15 L.Ed.2d 118 (1965). It has long been recognized under the federal constitution that a defendant is entitled to a jury that is free of outside influences and will decide the case according to the evidence and arguments presented in court in the course of the criminal trial itself. Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 , 27 S.Ct. 556, 558 , 51 L.Ed. 879, 881 (1907) (Holmes, J.).'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Russell v. State

3. “(a) It is not cause for challenge that a person called to act as a juror in a criminal case has formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused from news media reports or rumor if: (i) The prospective juror states that he can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court; and (ii) The court is satisfied, from the examination of the prospective juror or from other evidence, that he will render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence submitted to the jury at trial.”

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