White v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Petitioner] and his co-defendant allegedly encountered three men outside a tavern. One of the three men, Steve Swift, was wearing silver necklaces. Petitioner allegedly pushed Swift to the ground, grabbed Swift’s chains, and walked off. Swift’s companion, Frank Petroccitto, allegedly chased after White and demanded the return of the necklaces. Petroc-citto testified to grabbing [petitioner] in an attempt to neutralize him. [Petitioner] then punched Petroccitto and threw Petroccitto to the ground. Petroccitto again chased after [petitioner] and caught him from behind. [Petitioner] allegedly brandished a semi-automatic weapon, struggled with Petroccitto, and ran into the woods. The police arrived at the scene within minutes and soon apprehended [petitioner] and [his co-defendant]. The police drove Petroccitto to the area and he identified [the two] as the attackers. The police searched [petitioner] and found a crack pipe. The necklaces and gun were never located.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 416 F. Supp. 2d 270 - White v. Carroll

2. “Mr. Swift is another part of this ease. There is again no law or rule, although the innuendo is such from [defense counsel] that he would have to have Mr. Swift here for there to be a good case, when you’ve got Mr. Petroccitto and Kathy Dottery both as eyewitnesses, seeing that man snatch this silver necklace of Mr. Swift. You don’t need Mr. Swift here. And you were even given testimony as to where Mr. Swift is; Chicago with a new job.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 416 F. Supp. 2d 270 - White v. Carroll

3. “Improper vouching occurs when the prosecutor implies some personal superior knowledge, beyond that logically inferred from the evidence at trial, that the witness has testified truthfully.”

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