Reaves v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 38 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror is not competent to testify as to any matter which essentially inheres in the verdict or indictment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Aragon v. State · McAllister v. State

2. “a jury's consideration of a defendant's failure to testify ... is a matter which essentially inheres in the verdict itself.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sonneman v. State · Gray v. State

3. “In Reaves' first subclaim, he asserts that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present a voluntary intoxication defense. The record shows that during the guilt phase, the State introduced Reaves' confession—evidence which could have supported a voluntary intoxication defense since Reaves claimed to be "coked up" when he fired the gun. Defense counsel, however, never argued this defense or presented any evidence which supported voluntary intoxication despite the fact that there was other evidence which could have supported this theory. During the jury charge conference, the trial judge noted that during Reaves' first trial, the jury was informed as to this defense, and it was decided that such a jury instruction should be given again. Notwithstanding this fact, Reaves' counsel never mentioned voluntary intoxication during closing arguments, and never discussed how the evidence could have supported this theory or how cocaine affects the user. During the penalty phase, even more evidence was presented which would have supported a voluntary intoxication defense, including additional testimony that Reaves was on drugs at the time of the crime. Moreover, numerous witnesses testified that Reaves had a history of serious drug abuse dating back to the Vietnam War, that he became involved in "heavy drugs" towards the end of his service in Vietnam, and that his prior convictions were drug-related. . . . . The postconvict”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 942 So. 2d 874 - Reaves v. State