15 Utah 2d 162 - State v. Sinclair’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently December 1982 · most notably State v. Pierre (1977), Jean Sinclair v. John W. Turner, Warden, Utah State Prison (1971)
2 federal appellate · 40 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 10 Utah 2d 34 - State v. Ward · State v. Erwin · State v. Jones · State v. Siddoway · 3 Utah 2d 382 - State v. Clark
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We recognize that an accomplice may be motivated to falsify because of a desire to blame someone else in connection with the crime; or in the hope of obtaining leniency; or the very fact that he is involved in crime may tend to impair his credibility. These combine to justify looking upon his testimony with caution and refusing to permit a conviction to rest upon his word alone, as our statute provides. At 389 P.2d 467 -468.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ross“A conviction shall not be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless he is corroborated by other evidence, which in itself and without the aid of the testimony of the accomplice tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and the corroboration shall not be sufficient, if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ross
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.