Watson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

370 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 370 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[F]actual-sufficiency analysis [comprises] two prongs. The first prong asks whether the evidence introduced to support the verdict, though legally sufficient, is nevertheless “so weak” that the jury’s verdict seems “clearly wrong and manifestly unjust[.]” The second prong asks whether, considering conflicting evidence, the jury’s verdict, though legally sufficient, is nevertheless against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Johnson v. State · Lancon v. State

2. “[Tjhere are two ways in which the evidence may be insufficient. First, when considered by itself, evidence supporting the verdict may be too weak to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, there may be both evidence supporting the verdict and evidence contrary to the verdict. Weighing all the evidence under this balancing scale, the contrary evidence may be strong enough that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard could not have been met, so the guilty verdict should not stand.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Johnson v. State · Schiffert v. State

3. “[T]he reviewing court is required to defer to the jury's credibility and weight determinations because the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given their testimony.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Taylor v. State · In Re Rd