State v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 13 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. “A conviction cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless he is corroborated by other evidence, which in itself, and without the aid of the testimony of the accomplice, tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and the corroboration is not sufficient, if it merely shows the commission of the offense, or the circumstances thereof.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Pecor · State v. Dietrich

2. “The purpose of the corroboration requirement is to offset the danger that an accomplice may wholly fabricate testimony inculpating an innocent person in order to win more lenient treatment for the alleged accomplice. The corroborating evidence offered “need only connect the defendant with the crime.” The corroborating evidence must be independent of the accomplice’s testimony, but it need not be sufficient in and of itself to con vict the defendant. The corroborating evidence may be slight, need only go to one material fact and may be entirely circumstantial.”

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

3. “For this corroboration we turn to words spoken by Campbell himself. In a conversation with Mrs. Mac Atwood, pri- or to the discovery of her husband’s body by the police, Campbell told Mrs. Atwood that some people called ‘the Parker brothers ... had got to him and that we would find him in the Payette River.’ (Emphasis added.) In another conversation, Campbell spoke with a friend, Glen Bennett, prior to .the discovery of Atwood’s body. Campbell intimated to Bennett that Atwood had been ‘taken to the river.’ This particular knowledge of the probable location of the body prior to its discovery together with the condition of the body as described by Dr. Maier’s autopsy and the fact that Atwood’s hands were tied behind his back could lead a jury to believe that Campbell was a participant in both the aggravated battery and the kidnapping. The jury was free to conclude that Campbell’s disclosures corroborated the testimony of He-menway and Robertson as to these two charges.”

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