Thompson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 21 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Statements Identifying an Accused on a Former Occasion. Ordinarily, when a witness is asked to identify the assailant, or thief, or other person who is the subject of his testimony, the witness’ act of pointing out the accused (or other person), then and there in the court-room, is of little testimonial force. After all that has intervened, it would seldom happen that the witness would not have come to believe in the person’s identity. The failure to recognize would tell for the accused; but the affirmative recognition might mean little against him. The psychology of the situation is practically the same as when Recent Contrivance is alleged. To corroborate the witness, therefore, it is entirely proper (on the principle of § 1129, ante) to prove that at a former time, when the suggestions of others could not have intervened to create a fancied recognition in the witness’ mind, he recognized and declared the present accused to be the person. If, moreover (as sometimes is done) the person was then so placed among others that all probability of suggestion (by seeing him handcuffed, for example) is still further removed, the evidence becomes stronger. The typical illustration is that of the identification of an accused person at the time of arrest: * * *.” § 1130, p. 208. “* * * This is a simple dictate of common sense, and was never doubted in orthodox practice. That some modern Courts are on record for rejecting such evidence is a telling illustration of the power of a technic”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State

2. ““It has long been the rule that where a witness is impeached by evidence of statements made out of court contradictory to those made in court on the witness stand, it is permissible on rebuttal to introduce evidence of statements made at or about the time of the impeaching statements and in harmony with the statements or testimony given on the witness stand.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moreland v. State

3. “.“If :by adding the word ‘legitimate’ the defendant meant thereby to place special emphasis on this - particular defense, the request was improper, while if it did not qualify or emphasize the character of the defense, it was harmless to refuse it. The refusal to give these instructions did not constitute error.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Butler v. State