Ricketts v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 26 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[the corroborating] evidence is sufficient if ... it tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, although the evidence is slight, and entitled, when standing by itself, to but little consideration. Thus when we have a verdict[,] even though founded on slight evidence of corroboration connecting the defendant with the crime, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Jackson · State v. Smith

2. ““The rule upon this subject, as announced by the later authorities, and the great weight of authority, is that, while the corpus delicti cannot be established by confessions alone, yet the confessions may be taken in connection with other evidence, direct or circumstantial, corroborating them, and, if from all the evidence so considered together the corpus de-licti and the guilt of the person with reference thereto is established beyond a reasonable doubt, it is the duty of the jury to convict.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nichols v. State · State v. Housler

3. ““No universal and invariable rule can be laid down as to what would amount to proof of corpus delicti. Each case depends upon its own peculiar circumstance. But in every case of arson two fundamental facts must appear: — first, a burning; and second, some criminal agency which caused the burning. In other words, the corpus delicti in a case of arson is not merely the burning of the house in question, but that it was burned by the wilful act of some person, and not as a result of natural or accidental cause; for if nothing appears but the mere fact that the house was consumed by fire, the presumption is that the fire was the result of accident or some providential cause. “The confession of one that he burned the building alone will not authorize a conviction. This confession must be corroborated by evidence which, independently of the confession, tends to establish the corpus delicti.” Ricketts v. State, 192 Tenn. 649 , 241 S.W.2d 604 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 474 - Collins v. State