971 So. 2d 511 - State v. Brannon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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. “BJn State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La.1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), regarding proper standards for the admissibility of expert testimony which requires the trial court to act in a gatekeeping function to ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable. State v. Chauvin, 02-1188 (La.5/20/03), 846 So.2d 697 . To assist the trial courts in their preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and can properly be applied to the facts at issue, the Supreme Court suggested the following general observations are appropriate: 1) whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested; 2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; 3) the known or potential rate of error; and 4) whether the methodology is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-594 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 . In Foret, supra, the court adopted these observations as a helpful guide for our lower courts in considering this difficult issue. Id. Thus, Louisiana has adopted Daubert’s requirement that in order for technical or scientific expert testimony to be admissible under La. C.E. Art. 702, the scientific evidence must rise to a threshold level of reliability. Daubert’s general”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 114 So. 3d 567 - Murphy Cormier General Contractor, Inc. v. State, Department of Health & Hospitals · 9 So. 3d 1095 - State v. Vidrine

2. “Defense counsel voiced no objection when sentencing was taken up immediately after the denial of the motion for post verdict judgment of acquittal and the motion for new trial. After arguments were presented by the State, defense counsel argued in support of a lenient sentence, filing letters submitted on Defendant's behalf and citing to the contents of one letter in particular. Defense counsel also referred to the sentencing range and the period of time already spent in jail by the Defendant. Although the entire sentence could be imposed without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence, defense counsel argued that only the minimum (two years) should be imposed without these benefits. When giving its reasons for the sentence imposed, the trial court noted that it had sat through the trial in the matter, had read the pre-sentence investigation report and had read the letters and correspondence submitted. After citing both aggravating and mitigating factors, the trial court sentenced Defendant to a lower range sentence of seventeen years at hard labor, with the first two years to be served without benefits. In State v. Taves, 02-709 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/15/03) , 846 So.2d 1 , affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds, 03-0518 (La.12/3/03), 861 So.2d 144 , this court found a waiver of the twenty-four-hour delay, noting that defense counsel failed to voice an objection even though he was clearly aware that the sentencing was scheduled to be taken up the same ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. CSD

3. “[[Image here]] Further, in State v. Whatley, 03-1275, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/3/04), 867 So.2d 955, 959 , this court stated, “The fifth circuit, in [State v.] Lisotta, [ 98-648 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/16/98) ,] 726 So.2d [57] at 58, [writ denied, 99-433 (La.6/25/99), 745 So.2d 1183 ] stated that the reviewing court should consider three factors in reviewing the trial court’s sentencing discretion: 1. The nature of the crime, 2. The nature and background of the offender, and 3. The sentence imposed for similar crimes by the same court and other courts.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lafleur