96 So. 3d 605 - State v. Everett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “17[T]he defense argues that the state “knowingly” suborned perjury from eyewitness Sanders. According to the defense, Sanders perjured himself at trial when he said he had not given the defendant’s name to the DEA. The defense maintains that a memorandum produced by the state contradicted Sanders’ testimony, but the trial court refused to admit the memorandum into evidence. The defense claims the trial court’s action denied it the right to impeach Sanders with the memorandum. In support of his argument, the defendant cites Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1969) for the proposition that where a prosecutor allows a state witness to give false testimony without correction, a reviewing court must reverse the conviction if the witness’s testimony reasonably could have affected the jury’s verdict, even if the testimony goes only to the credibility of the witness. Id., 360 U.S. at 269 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 . ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ Sanders did not perjure himself. He testified that he told federal agents “everything he knew” about this incident. He was not asked | ¿whether he told DEA agents defendant Crump’s name. Further, the defense has failed to produce a copy of the statement it contends proves that Sanders committed perjury. However, even if Sanders did tell DEA agents Crump’s name, the exclusion of the statement did not prejudice the defendant because the evidence was not exculpatory. We find no proof of state misconduct or that Crump suffered any prejudice in this i”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 217 So. 3d 484 - State v. Griffin · 211 So. 3d 420 - State v. Everett

2. “At trial, Nekeia identified both defendants as the men who shot the victim. Sanders identified only Crump. The defendants argue these in-court identifications are unreliable, biased, untrustworthy, and should not be accorded any weight. The defendants emphasize that Sanders initially denied being a witness to the shooting when he was interviewed by police at the scene. Also, they note that Sanders came forward with his identification only after he was arrested on a state marijuana charge and had forfeited his federal bond. Continuing, the defendants argue that Sanders and Nekeia lied when they identified the defendants, and that they did so solely for the purpose of obtaining a reduction of Sanders’ twenty-year federal sentence. Sanders candidly admitted he lied to the police when he said he did not witness the shooting. He also admitted that in exchange for his cooperation with the state, he hoped to receive favorable consideration of his request for sentence reduction. [[Image here]] It is not the function of the appellate court to reassess the credibility of witnesses or to reweigh the evidence; the reviewing court's function is to determine the constitutional sufficiency of the evidence presented. State v. Barthelemy, 09-0391, p. 25 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/24/10), 32 So.3d 999, 1015 , writ den., 10-0706 (La. 10/29/10), 48 So.3d 1097 . The defense’s claim of bias and perjury with respect to Nekeia’s and Sanders' identifications of the defendants as the shooters was considered by”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 211 So. 3d 420 - State v. Everett

3. “Even where a prosecutor’s argument has exceeded the scope of art. 774 or is deemed to be improper, a reviewing court should credit the good sense and fair-mindedness of the jurors who have heard the evidence. In addition, “a reviewing court will not reverse a conviction unless thoroughly convinced that the argument influenced the jury and contributed to the verdict.” As the Court noted in Draughn: “Mistrial is a drastic remedy, and the determination of whether prejudice to the defendant, has resulted from the prosecutor’s comments lies in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Moreover, a trial judge has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing argument.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 163 So. 3d 37 - State v. Simonson