Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 27 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘Chain of custody’ is an indirect method of proving the identity and integrity of evidence by showing its continuous whereabouts. Such a showing negates any substantial likelihood of substitution or alteration of the evidence. The establishment of a chain of custody is necessary where the nature of the evidence is such that it lacks identifiable characteristics or where the evidentiary purpose to be served by the item requires assurance that the evidence has not been subjected to tampering which could not be detected by human perception. Where the evidence is such that it may be recognized and identified by witnesses, and where tampering or alteration relevant to the purpose to be served by the evidence is not a realistic threat, no chain of custody need be established. Woodard v. State (1977), [267] Ind. [19], 366 N.E.2d 1160 , quoting C. McCormick, Evidence § 212 at 527 (2d ed. 1972).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Wagner v. State · 181 Ind. App. 202 - Kyles v. State