State v. Woolfolk’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 8 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There is evidence in the record from which an inference may be drawn that Woolfolk did not know about the gun.... Woolfolk was not prevented from reminding the jury of this evidence but was precluded from driving home the crucial point that if they believed Woolfolk when he said he did not know about the gun, then they should find that he was not armed. Woolfolk should not be precluded from arguing his theory of the case to the jury, and we find that the trial court erred in granting the State's motion in limine.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Perez-Cervantes · 141 Wash. 2d 468 - State v. Perez-Cervantes

2. “Although the gun may be within reach of the passenger, it goes against common sense to say that the passenger is armed. Because the passenger does not know it exists, he cannot use the gun. And it is the potential use of guns that is at the heart of the firearm enhancement.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Barnes · State v. Barnes

3. “`to restrict the argument of counsel to the facts in evidence.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Perez-Cervantes · State v. Frost