851 So. 2d 345 - State v. Fradieu’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The court in Duplessis found reversal was necessary not because of the prosecutor’s personal attack on defense counsel but due to the cumulative nature of errors during closing argument. The trial judge in Duplessis permitted the prosecutor to make inappropriate comments, failed to give an admonition to the jury, and told defense counsel not to interrupt the prosecutor’s closing argument. In the instant case, the trial judge allowed defense counsel to object numerous times during closing argument, admonished the jury when appropriate, and cautioned the prosecutor to confine argument to the evidence. The defendant also attempts to distinguish more recent cases, in which the prosecutor’s personal attack on defense counsel, albeit |8inappropriate, did not rise to the level of reversible error. In State v. Bridgewater, 2000-1529 (La.1/15/02), 823 So.2d 877 , the prosecutor made the following remarks during closing argument: Well, he hires himself a good lawyer and he gets a lawyer that’s going to be able to take that intent thing and kind of twist it around and hope that he can play the odds — ... he knows that the odds aren’t good that all 12 of you are going to buy this nonsense that he had no intent to kill anybody. Bridgewater, 2000-1529, fn. 32, 823 So.2d 877, 917 . The court in Bridgewa-ter found that while “prosecutors should refrain from personal attacks on defense strategy and counsel, a comment that suggests the state carried its burden despite defense attempts to show ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 126 So. 3d 675 - State v. Allen

2. “By Ms. Maloney [ADA]: It is Mr. Wainwriglit’s job to stand before you and mislead you and confuse you and do anything to earn the fee that he was paid, [emphasis added] By Mr. Wainwright: Mistrial. By the Court: Denied. By Mr. Wainwright: This is improper argument. It’s been adjudicated by many appellate courts and I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing at this point, Judge— By the Court: Keep to the evidence, Ms. Maloney.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 126 So. 3d 675 - State v. Allen

3. “A requested special charge shall be given by the court if it does not require qualification, limitation, or explanation, and if it is wholly correct and pertinent. It need not be given if it is included in the general charge or in another special charge to be given.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 931 So. 2d 432 - State v. Wright