Gochicoa v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Mississippi Rule Evidence 801(c) defines hearsay as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Stated another way, an out-of-court statement is not hearsay unless the party offering the statement is attempting to prove that the statement is true. While it is true that neither the C.I. nor the law enforcement officers who testified for the state court identified Brown’s voice on the tape, the failure to identify Brown does not render the tape inadmissible. In fact, the tape was offered to prove the pre-arrangement conversations had taken place, as Echols and other law enforcement officers had previously testified. In effect the audiotape corroborated the various witnesses’ testimony. Therefore, sufficient testimony existed to admit the tape for the purpose of proving that the conversations had taken place as well as the gist of the conversations. The audiotape was not offered to show that Brown was involved in the prearrangement conversations, nor could it have been. A careful review of every word and sentence on the audiotape reveals no statement, which the State needed to prove as true. The tape contained such utterances as, “Ain’t got to left” ... “I want it hard man” ... ‘Yeah, I’m with my bride but I’m going to be walking out where I can see you man.” The State had no need to prove these statements, or any of the other statements on the audiotape, were true. T”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 758 F. Supp. 2d 347 - Brown v. Epps

2. “5. Q: I am now showing the witness volume 7 of the statement of facts. This is on page 248. Mr Painter, would you agree this is the opening portion of the State’s closing argument? A: Yes. Q: Mr. Painter, would you read us lines 8 through 15? A: “We know that Deputy Gomez had information from a confidential informant that Manuel Salcido was in this area in his home selling heroin and that Pedro Gochicoa was buying it at this particular time. Why else would Deputy Gomez arrive out there at the same time Victor Prieto was out there? Q: You did not object to that, did you? A: No. Q: Would you agree that incorporates hearsay information? A: Yes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 53 F. Supp. 2d 943 - Gochicoa v. Johnson

3. “"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” U.S. Const. amend. VI.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Horn v. Quarterman