179 So. 3d 753 - State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In State v. Taylor , 14-432, pp. 7-8 (La. 3/17/15), 166 So.3d 988 , 993-94 (emphasis added), the court explained in pertinent part: The rational trier of fact standard established by Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), preserves " 'the factfinder's role as weigher of the evidence,' " by requiring an appellate court to review " ' all of the evidence ... in the light most favorable to the prosecution.' " McDaniel v. Brown , 558 U.S. 120 , 134, 130 S.Ct. 665 , 674, 175 L.Ed.2d 582 [ (2010) ] (quoting Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 ). Preserving the role of the factfinder means that in cases involving circumstantial evidence, when "the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant [ ], that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt." State v. Captville , 448 So.2d 676 , 680 (La.1984). The alternative hypothesis is not one that merely " could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion," but one that, after viewing all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, admissible as well as inadmissible, "is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not 'have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' " Captville , 448 So.2d at 680 (quoting Jackson ); see State v. Hearold , 603 So.2d 731 , 734 (La.1992) ("[W]hen the entirety of the evidence, both admissible and inadmissible, is sufficient to support t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 241 So. 3d 457 - State v. Cotten

2. “Summer 2011 .... [the d]efendant and Ms. Hunt began dating and living together on and off. August 5, 2011 .... Derrion was brought to the hospital. He complained of stomach and rib pain. Ms. Hunt gave a history of Derrion being accidentally hit by a swing while in the care of [the d]efendant. According to the medical records and testimony of Dr. Howes, the chest x-ray did not show broken ribs. October 7, 2011 .... Derrion was brought to the hospital for a burn to his right hand (2nd degree burn) which happened on October 4, 2011. History from mother said it was a hot grease burn. The chest x-ray did not show any broken ribs. November 7 to December 12, 2011 .... Dr. Tape testified that Derrion's rib fractures occurred from one to six weeks from the date of his death. December 8, 2011 .... Ms. Sam [Derrion's aunt] testified that Derrion had a bruise on his forehead and scratches on his face. Derrion said that [the d]efendant hit him, but Ms. Hunt testified that [the d]efendant said Derrion hit his head on the wall. December 18, 2011 : Morning .... According to Ms. Hunt, [the d]efendant arrives at home. 11:42 a.m. .... According to Dr. Tape and the autopsy report, the best estimate of when the injury occurred to the duodenum (twenty-four hours before Derrion was pronounced dead at 11:42 a.m.). Both [the d]efendant and Ms. Hunt could have been present. 3:00 or 4:00 p.m. .... According to Ms. Hunt, she goes to work. 4:30 p.m. .... According to [the d]efendant's mother, she dropped”

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

3. “'the factfinder's role as weigher of the evidence,' " by requiring an appellate court to review " ' all of the evidence ... in the light most favorable to the prosecution.' " McDaniel v. Brown , 558 U.S. 120 , 134, 130 S.Ct. 665 , 674, 175 L.Ed.2d 582 [ (2010) ] (quoting Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 ). Preserving the role of the factfinder means that in cases involving circumstantial evidence, when "the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant [ ], that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 241 So. 3d 457 - State v. Cotten