198 Wis. 2d 149 - State v. McCallum’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2011
8 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 North Carolina v. Alford · 49 Wis. 2d 683 - Nicholas v. State · 163 Wis. 2d 241 - State v. Krieger · 150 Wis. 2d 62 - State v. Martinez · 41 Wash. App. 538 - State v. York
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he degree and extent of the corroboration required varies from case to case based on its individual circumstances. Here, the sexual assault allegation was made under circumstances where no others witnessed the event. Further, there is no physical evidence that could corroborate the original allegation or the recantation. Under these circumstances, requiring a defendant to redress a false allegation with significant independent corroboration of the falsity would place an impossible burden upon any wrongly accused defendant. We conclude, under the circumstances presented here, the existence of a feasible motive for the false testimony together with circumstantial guarantees of the trustworthiness of the recantation are sufficient to meet the corroboration requirement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“is not required to show that a different result is assured, merely that there is a reasonable probability of a different result.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a reasonable jury could believe the [new evidence] or at least the [new evidence] could create a reasonable doubt as to the validity of the [trial evidence], the requirement of a reasonable probability of a different result is met.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Avery
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.