State v. Eleck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 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. “(a) General Provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. (b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule: (1) Testimony of Witness With Knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be. (2) Non-expert Opinion on Handwriting. Non-expert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation. [[Image here]] (10) Other Methods. Any method of authentication or identification provided by the Mississippi Supreme Court or by the Constitution of Mississippi. '”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 Conn. App. 734 - State v. Smith · 175 So. 3d 1 - Tyrone Boyd v. State of Mississippi

2. “The argument is that e-mails or text messages are inherently unreliable be-' cause of their relative anonymity and the fact that while an electronic message can be traced to a particular computer, it can rarely be connected to a specific author with any certainty. Unless the purported author is actually witnessed sending the email, there is always the possibility it is not from whom it claims. As appellant correctly points out, anybody with the right password can gain access to another’s email account and send a message ostensibly from that person. However, the same uncertainties exist with traditional written ■documents. A signature can be forged; a letter can be typed on another’s typewriter; distinct letterhead stationary can be copied or stolen.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Michael Eugene Koch

3. “[t]he distinctive characteristics of an object, writing or other communication, when considered in conjunction with the surrounding circumstances, may provide sufficient circumstantial evidence of authenticity.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 Conn. App. 734 - State v. Smith