Gibson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 3 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[THE COURT]: Would you give me a race neutral reason why you struck [veniremember 11]? [PROSECUTOR]: Judge, I struck [veniremember 11] because she had spoken up and said that she would require more than one witness to testify. [THE COURT]: All right. [DEFENSE]: Your Honor, in response to that, [veniremember 7] stated the same thing, that he would need more evidence than one witness though he was not struck by the State. [THE COURT]: All right. Can you answer that, please? [PROSECUTOR]: I can, Judge. He qualified his answer — And we can go back to the record. But he qualified his record [sic] at one point and said, but if there is more evidence I would be okay. And, in fact, there is more evidence in this case. I can’t state strongly enough, Judge — I don’t want to — We want to give [appellant] a fair trial and if there’s anything here that’s not fair— [THE COURT]: Well, that’s what I’m trying to find out. You struck Number 11 for the reason you stated and did not strike Number 7 for the reason you stated; is that correct? [PROSECUTOR]: That is correct with the caveat I just added. [[Image here]] [THE COURT]: Okay. I’m going to deny the Batson challenge, [appellant’s lawyer]. [DEFENSE]: Your Honor— [THE COURT]: He’s given race neutral reasons. Yes, sir. [DEFENSE]: Just as a request to clarify your ruling. Their reason for striking [veniremember 11], that he [sic] needed more evidence and the similar and same reason [veniremember 7] was not struck, is that — has he given a suff”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gibson v. State

2. “[PROSECUTOR]: Let’s talk about one witness cases, okay. I expect that [an eye-witness police offlcer] is going to be the only State’s actual fact witness in this particular case, okay. Now, think about that for a second. If you accept his testimony and you believe — and you hear the evidence and you believe his testimony beyond a reasonable doubt, is that going to be enough for you to return a guilty verdict? Assuming that all of the elements are satisfied and you believe his testimony beyond a reasonable doubt, is that going to be enough or would you require some other evidence just to be sure? And this is an important question. It’s an important question. It’s important for you to think about it and I’m going to go row by row because I can tell you, the law is it is enough. I mean, legally that’s enough. What happens, you made [sic] guess is that a lot of crimes — a lot of crimes are one witness cases. Have any of y’all been held up before or assaulted? Unfortunately, a lot of things like that happen with only one witness. Of course, it’s perfectly within the law. Anybody on the first row think that, even though you believe him beyond a reasonable doubt, you want something else? Anybody? [VENIREMEMBER 7]: Idó. [PROSECUTOR]: You feel like you would? [VENIREMEMBER 7]: I could believe in a man’s testimony, if he’s a policeman, but still people make mistakes. And I have to have a little more evidence. [PROSECUTOR]: Okay. That’s fíne. I appreciate your honesty. [PROSECUTOR]: Oka”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gibson v. State

3. “[DEFENSE]: Okay, [veniremember 7], you stated that you may need more evidence than the testimony of one officer? [VENIREMEMBER 7]: Yes. [DEFENSE]: If the Judge were to — At the end of this and you were picked and the Judge were to give you what is called the Charge and these are all of the items; that mere presence alone is not — is not sufficient to convict somebody and whatever law you’re suppose to apply in this case; would you follow that law? Say you had no more evidence than what the officer stated or would you say, no, I’m going to need more evidence before I can vote? [VENIREMEMBER 7]: Well, you know what I’m saying, people make mistakes and sometimes in the process of doing things you make mistakes. And if he’s got more evidence to show and if I can see it. But if there’s no more evidence and I have to take just the word of a policeman or anyone person, I have my doubts. [DEFENSE]: Okay. But would you put the State to it’s [sic] burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? [VENIREMEMBER 7]: Yes. [DEFENSE]: So you would follow the law in this case? [VENIREMEMBER 7]: Yes, I would. [DEFENSE]: And vote your conscience, okay.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gibson v. State