Cotton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 13 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When assessing the legal sufficiency of a conviction, a reviewing court determines 'whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dexter Powell v. State of Mississippi · Richard Lamar Green v. State of Mississippi

2. “While no Mississippi case bears du'ectly on the sufficiency of DNA evidence alone, other jurisdictions have affirmed convictions based solely on DNA evidence. See State v. Toomes, 191 S.W.3d 122, 129-31 (Tenn.Crim.App.2005); Roberson v. State, 16 S.W.3d 156, 169-71 (Tex.Ct.App.2000); Rush v. Artus, 2009 WL 982418 , (E.D.N.Y. April 10, 2009); State v. Hunter, 169 Ohio App.3d 65 , 861 N.E.2d 898 , 901 (2006); State v. Abdelmalik, 273 S.W.3d 61, 66 (Mo.Ct.App.2008); see also Maryland v. King, - U.S. -, -, 133 S.Ct., 1958, 1964 , 186 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (emphasizing that DNA provides "unparalleled accuracy" and is "far superior" to fingerprinting with regard to identifying erimi-nals). In accordance with those decisions, we conclude that, when DNA material is found in a location inconsistent with casual contact and absent a "reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence," DNA evidence alone can be sufficient to support a conviction. We caution that we are not announcing a principle that DNA evidence alone will always be sufficient to support a conviction. Every conviction relying on DNA evidence must stand on its own merits.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lance David Bean v. State

3. “A mere fanciful-or farfetched or unreasonable hypothesis of innocence is not ■sufficient to require an acquittal...1. 'When reviewing a jury verdict of guilty we are required to accept as true all the evidence favorable to the State, together with reasonable inferences arising therefrom, to ■ disregard the evidence favorable to the defendant, and if such will support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable-doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, then the jury verdict shall not be disturbed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 So. 3d 881 - Shannon Rayner v. State of Mississippi