Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 204 CONN 472 - State v. Sanchez

State v. Sanchez’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
2
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Buckman v. People Express, Inc. (1987), Gore v. People's Savings Bank (1995)

35 state decisions

1401987199020002010decided

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 Cruz v. Hauck · Parham v. Cortese · Costello v. United States · Weiler v. United States · Brown v. North Carolina

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

  1. “[T]he two witness rule is a quantitative rule of evidence which provides that a person may not be convicted of perjury upon the testimony of a single witness as to the falsity of the statement made.... Originally, the rule required that in order to sustain a conviction for perjury, the falsity of the defendant's oath had to have been proven by the sworn testimony of two or more live witnesses. Over the years, however, the rule has been modified to permit a conviction upon the sworn testimony of one live witness if that testimony is supported by proof of corroborative circumstances, the so-called one-witness-plus-corroboration rule.... It has been said that [t]he rule of evidence in perjury cases presents an almost unique exception to the general rule that evidence which is sufficient to convince the jury of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient to sustain a conviction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.