Desilvey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

112 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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Of course, in every criminal prosecution the burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the crime charged has in fact been committed and that the accused is the person who committed it. It is well settled that circumstantial evidence may afford satisfactory proof of the corpus delicti. Winslow v. State , 76 Ala. 42 . "True, the Court must first be convinced, at least prima facie, that an offense has been committed before it will consider who perpetrated the crime. As pointed out, however, in Ducett v. State , 186 Ala. 34 , 65 So. 351 , this does not mean that the fact that a crime has been committed should be shown by evidence wholly independent of the relation of the accused to the offense charged. The evidence that defendant committed the crime may be so inextricably blended with proof of the corpus delicti as to make a separation impossible. As to whether or not a prima facie case of the corpus delicti has been made to appear depends, of course, upon the facts of each particular case."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Breen v. State · 437 So. 2d 1349 - Dunkins v. State

2. “"It is evident that a conviction depended in the main on circumstantial evidence. It is apparent, also, that the doctrines of conspiracy and `aid and abet' have places in the review. "It is a familiar rule that `a person charged with a felony should not be convicted unless evidence excludes to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis but that of his guilt, and that, no matter how strong the circumstances were, they did not come up to full measure of proof which the law required if they could be reasonably reconciled with theory that defendant was innocent.' It follows that if the evidence does exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis, etc., a conviction is authorized on circumstantial evidence." (Citations omitted)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 342 So. 2d 422 - Smith v. State · 344 So. 2d 807 - Edwards v. State

3. “[A] well connected train of circumstances may be as cogent of the existence of a fact as any array of direct evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 570 So. 2d 881 - McLaney v. City of Montgomery