Lester v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The structure of the rule and its wording demonstrate the obvious suspicion with which the drafters of the rule regarded a statement exposing the declarant to criminal liability, but exculpating the accused. The requirement of corroboration is therefore construed in such a manner as to effectuate its purpose of circumventing fabrication.”); see generally United States v. Amerson, 185 F.3d 676, 691 (7th Cir.1999) (Posner, C.J., dissenting) (discussing rationale for requiring corroboration). . This type includes confessions. Woods v. State, 152 S.W.3d 105, 122 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (”

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

2. “It should also be noted that the statements were made in the presence of appellant’s brother ... and his sister-in-law and thus the speakers reasonably felt they could confide in them and had no motivation to lie or place the blame for the crime on someone else.”

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