Bankston v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The use of the “dynamite” instruction has been approved by our supreme court. See Miller v. State, 280 Ark. 551 , 660 S.W.2d 163 (1983); Walker v. State, 276 Ark. 434 , 637 S.W.2d 528 (1982).... Such an instruction is not improper if the admonition is given without the trial judge’s opinion as to the weight of the evidence, if there is no change in any of the instructions previously given, and if there is no suggestion that any juror must yield his convictions to obtain a verdict. Walker, supra. None of these factors were present in the instruction given in the instant case; in fact, the trial judge specifically stated that he did not intend to suggest or require that any juror surrender his or her conviction. Therefore, the giving of the instruction was not improper or prejudicial. Appellant further asserts that the “dynamite” instruction was given prematurely to the jury. In his brief, he cites Miller, supra, and Walker, supra, in support of his argument. In those cases, the juries deliberated for five hours and four hours, respectively, before the instruction was given. In this ease, appellant argues that two hours and twenty minutes was not a long enough period of time to require the dynamite instruction; therefore, the giving of it was reversible error. We disagree. Appellant’s argument overlooks Davis v. State, 319 Ark. 460 , 892 S.W.2d 472 (1995), in which the “dynamite” instruction was given after only two hours, and our supreme court held that the trial court did not”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Ark. App. 480 - Moore v. State