State v. Miyashiro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 10 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[b]ecause the circuit court's response to a jury communication is the functional equivalent of an instruction, the standard of review for jury instructions also applies to reviewing a trial court's answers to jury communications.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Uyesugi · State v. Arquilla

2. “[I]f the jurors unanimously agreed that all the elements of the charged offense have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt but are unable to reach unanimous agreement as to the affirmative defense of entrapment, no unanimous verdict can be reached as to the charged offense because some jurors would vote for conviction and others for acquittal. In such instance, a mistrial would have to be declared due to the hung jury.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. United States v. Southwell · State v. Uyesugi

3. “The circuit court should have instructed the jury) in relevant part, that its delibera-five process should include the following steps: (1) For each count, decide whether all the elements of the charged offense have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. (2) If the jury unanimously agrees that all the elements of the charged offense have not been established beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must acquit [the djefendant of the charged offense and consideration of the affirmative defense ... is not required. (3) If the jury unanimously agrees that all the elements of the charged offense have been established beyond a reasonable doubt, then the jury must consider the affirmative defense.... In such event, (a) If the jury unanimously agrees that [the djefendant has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, [the affirmative defense] for a charged offense, the jury must acquit [the djefendant of that offense; and (b) If the jury unanimously agrees that [the djefendant has not proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, [the affirmative defense], the jury must find Defendant guilty of the charged offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Yamada