Jamison v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]ll the fingerprints that have ever been taken as far as reported cases are concerned run into an infinite number and no two have ever been found alike. The courts generally have reached the conclusion that evidence of this kind is infallible because of its conclusiveness. From what has been said above it is obvious that we have reached the conclusion that this evidence of the fingerprints of this man on this machine is conclusive and sufficient evidence to establish his guilt as the one who entered and burglarized this building. There is no evidence to show that he was in or around or near or had access to the machine where he could have had his hands on it, and this being true if the fingerprints were true and there is no debate about the fact that these are his fingerprints because he freely allowed them to take his fingerprints after he was arrested, and his fingerprints which were made after he was arrested and those of his that were on file in the Federal Bureau of Investigation were all the same and these were exhibited in a blown-up manner, that is the fingerprints were enlarged so that you could very easily see the different marks, and were exhibited to the jury. We thus must conclude that this is sufficient evidence and there is no doubt under this record in our mind but that the man was guilty and the judgment must be affirmed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Toomes · 4 Tenn. Crim. App. 676 - Correll v. State

2. ““In the very able briefs of both the plaintiff in error and the State the annotation covering all questions we know anything about in reference to fingerprints, 28 A.L.R.2d beginning at page 1115 and extending through page 1158, is cited. This annotation covers Evidence— Finger, Palm, or Footprint. Counsel for plaintiff in error cite several Texas cases and others from this annotation which illustrate cases where the evidence was insufficient to convict. There are also cited in this same annotation many cases illustrative of where the factual situation showed a sufficiency of the evidence to convict. One such case is Grice v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 4 , 151 S.W.2d 211 , wherein a very full and thorough discussion of the weight to be given fingerprint evidence is set forth. In this opinion the court takes up cases from many jurisdictions wherein the evidence was held sufficient and wherein it was held not sufficient and very clearly sets forth the distinguishing, features of the cases. In this opinion the cases relied upon by the plaintiff in error from Texas are clearly distinguished. The court says: “ ‘The question we have is whether or not the identity of fingerprints may be used as sufficient identification of the individual or only a circumstance taken with others to identify him.’ • “In this opinion the case of Stacy v. State, 49 Okl.Cr. 154 , 292 P. 885 is quoted from, as follows: ‘ ‘ ‘ The fingerprints of Stacy were found on the door of the vault. There was no other testi”

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

3. ““* * * Of course, this evidence standing alone is purely circumstantial. This Court in Smith v. State, 205 Tenn. 502 , 327 S.W.2d 308 , at page 317 of 327 S.W.2d, and at page 522 of 205 Tenn., quoted from Wharton’s Criminal Evidence on the amount or the weight that circumstantial evidence should be given in a criminal case. That quotation is: “ ‘ “Circumstantial evidence may by itself be sufficient proof of the commission of a crime and sufficient proof on which to base a conviction.” * * * “ ‘ “In the effort to guard against improper verdicts, it is commonly stated that in determining the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, (1) all the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, as that is to be compared with all the facts proved; (2) the facts must exclude every other reasonable theory or hypothesis except that of guilt; and (3) the facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the accused as to convince the mind beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who committed the offense.” ’ “The general rule ordinarily is that the evidence must be such as to remove all reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. This being the applicable rule of law it becomes necessary for the Court in each case to determine upon the facts and circumstances of that case whether or not it is brought within the rule.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 256 - Pruitt v. State