State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “But the particular allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel alleged by the defendant herein cannot be sufficiently investigated from the inspection of the record alone. Each of these allegations (failure to object to the jury’s review of written evidence during deliberations, failure to present evidence of the effects of alcohol or evidence of impairment, and the failure to object to jury instructions) may involve matters of trial preparation or strategy. It is well settled that decisions relating to investigation, preparation, and strategy require an evidentiary hearing and cannot possibly be reviewed on appeal. Only in an evidentiary hearing in the district court, where the defendant could | ^present evidence beyond that contained in the instant record, could these allegations be sufficiently investigated. Accordingly, these allegations are not subject to appellate review.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 8 So. 3d 804 - State v. Tapp · 45 So. 3d 1136 - State v. Jones

2. “Louisiana Constitution article I, § 17(A) and La.Code Crim. P. art. 782(A) provide that in cases where punishment is necessarily at hard labor, the case shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve jurors, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict. Under both state and federal jurisprudence, a criminal conviction by a less than unanimous jury does not violate a defendant's right to trial by jury specified by the Sixth Amendment and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 , 92 S.Ct. 1628 , 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972); State v. Belgard, 410 So.2d 720, 726 (La.1982); State v. Shanks, 97-1885, pp. 15-16 (La.App. 1st Cir. 6/29/98), 715 So.2d 157, 164-65 . The defendant's reliance on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); and Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 , 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999) is misplaced. These Supreme Court decisions do not address the issue of the constitutionality of a non-unanimous jury verdict; rather, they address the issue of whether the assessment of facts in determining an increased penalty of a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum is within the province of the jury or the trial judge, sitting alone. Nothing in these decisions suggests that the jury's verdict must be unanimous for a defendant's co”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 994 So. 2d 153 - State v. Daigle

3. “Any relationship or familiarity between Detective Ballard and Mr. Naquin appeared tenuous, at best. More importantly, however, there was no objection made, regarding this issue. An irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence. La. Code Crim. P. art. 841(A). The purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule is to allow the trial judge the opportunity to rule on the objection and thereby prevent or cure an error. The rule also prevents a defendant from”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 253 So. 3d 173 - State v. Day