9 Wash. App. 644 - State v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Court: Gentlemen, I have called you because when the jury yesterday announced that it had reached a verdict, the foreman asked the bailiff if they could also give me a note asking for clemency for the defendant. The bailiff was at the door of the jury room, I was over here, and she asked me. And I said, “Yes, that’s all right, tell them that they can.” And so she told them that they could pass a note along with the verdict. When the verdict was handed by the foreman to the bailiff and by the bailiff to me, it had with it a note[ 1 ] which when I read it did not conform to what they had asked, and since it was directed to me I didn’t have it read because I was a little surprised at it and wanted to decide what I should do, how I should treat it. I have since considered it, and I have talked to a couple of other judges, because this is a rather unusual type of note to receive from a jury, and have decided that it should be filed in the case and treated just as any other communication that any member of the jury might send to the Court. I debated whether this constituted impeaching the verdict or not. I have decided that this is a matter to be considered by the Court at a subsequent time, and that counsel are entitled to know of it, the circumstances under which it was submitted, and to take whatever action they deem appropriate in connection with it. This is the reason why I called you.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 84 Wash. 2d 42 - State v. Robinson

2. ““In finding the defendant guilty on Count I, we, the jury, could, by the evidence and testimony admitted only find him guilty of the crime of accepting drinks while in uniform in the Golden Horseshoe Tavern after legal closing hours and on Sundays, thus neglecting and violating his official duty.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 84 Wash. 2d 42 - State v. Robinson