Owens v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 4 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “That is what the Court should have done in this case. If that analysis had been done, it would reflect the evidence should have been admitted in that the facts relating to the similarities of the two crimes in this case are the mirror images of the factual analysis in Williams and Pickens . When the evidence in these three cases is reviewed side by side, there is no reason why the evidence was admissible in the first two cases, but not the present case. An objective analysis can make no reasonable distinction between the admissibility of the evidence in each of the three cases. Trying to make that distinction is like trying to strain a gnat's hair to find a discernable difference. Instead of engaging in that type of verbal gymnastics we should apply the straight forward, common sense approach the Court set out above in Williams. I would find the other crimes evidence properly admitted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 OK CR 7 - NELOMS v. State

2. “there are enough similarities between the two crimes to support the trial court's decision.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 OK CR 7 - NELOMS v. State

3. “[s]imilar, but independent crimes are not admissible.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 OK CR 7 - NELOMS v. State