Mathews v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

62 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “extremely narrow, and applies only when the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due process.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sirajuddin Abdul Qadir v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · Bryan Stone v. State of Indiana

2. “The imposition of consecutive sentences is a separate and discrete decision from sentence enhancement, although both may be dependent upon the same aggravating circumstances. Ajabu v. State, 722 N.E.2d 339, 343 (Ind.2000). As with sentence enhancement, even a single aggravating circumstance may support the imposition of consecutive sentences. Sanquenetti v. State, 727 N.E.2d 437, 442 (Ind.2000).”

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

3. “[A]n error in ruling on a motion to exclude improperly seized evidence is not per se fundamental error. Indeed, because improperly seized evidence is frequently highly relevant, its admission ordinarily does not cause us to question guilt. That is the case here. The only basis for questioning Brown’s conviction lies not in doubt as to whether Brown committed these crimes, but rather in a challenge to the integrity of the judicial process. We do not consider that admission of unlawfully seized evidence ipso facto requires reversal. Here, there is no claim of fabrication of evidence or willful malfeasance on the part of the investigating officers and no contention that the evidence is not what it appears to be. In short, the claimed error does not rise to the level of fundamental error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. David Rhodes v. State of Indiana