Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 27 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Eisen v. State.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Eisen v. State Anchor | green | “speak in mitigation of the sentence to be imposed.” | 10 |
| 2 | McGautha v. California | green | “this court has not directly determined whether or to what extent the concept of due process of law requires that a criminal defendant wishing to present evidence or argument presumably relevant to the issues involved in sentencing should be permitted to do so.” | 7 |
| 3 | Eisen v. State | green | “allocution' refers to a trial judge's asking a criminal defendant to 'speak in mitigation of the sentence to be imposed.” | 4 |
| 4 | Avilez v. State | green | “a judge should not act as an advocate or adversary for any party.” | 3 |
| 5 | McClintick v. State | green | “he did not raise this contention before the trial court prior to the imposition of sentence” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.