211 W. Va. 9 - State v. McDaniel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “Other-crime evidence may be admitted if the evidence of other crimes is so distinctive that it can be seen as a “signature” identifying a unique defendant, such as the infamous Jack the Ripper. ... [Ejvidence of the commission of the same type of crime is not sufficient on this theory unless the particular method of committing the offense, the modus operandi (or m.o.), is sufficiently distinctive to constitute a signature. Other-crimes evidence is not permissible to identify a defendant as the perpetrator of the charged act simply because he or she has at other times committed the same garden variety criminal act.... 2 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 404.22[5][c], at 404-121 to 404-122 (Joseph M. McLaughlin, ed., Matthew Bender 2d ed.2001).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of West Virginia v. Charles Edward Bruffey