28 So. 3d 496 - State v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Even without the benefit of direct scientific evidence, we find that the expert testimony of Mr. Waguespack was sufficient to show the pills contained clona-zepam. The Louisiana Supreme Court has adopted the view of the federal courts that the “‘government need not introduce scientific evidence to prove the identity of a substance ... as long as there is sufficient lay testimony or circumstantial evidence from which a jury could find that a substance was identified beyond a reasonable doubt, the lack of scientific evidence does not warrant reversal.’ ” State v. Harris, 02-1589, p. 6 (La. 5/20/03), 846 So.2d 709, 713 (quoting United States v. Sanchez DeFundora, 893 F.2d 1173, 1175 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 939 , 110 S.Ct. 2190 , 109 L.Ed.2d 518 (1990)). The supreme court further found, “[[Identification based upon familiarity through law enforcement coupled with present observation of the substance at hand will suffice to establish the illicit nature of a suspected substance.” Harris, 02-1589 at 6, 846 So.2d at 714 (citing United States v. Harrell, 737 F.2d 971, 978-79 (11th Cir.1984)). Further, in a case factually similar to the instant matter, the Third Circuit found the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for possession with intent to distribute hydrocodone. State v. Carter, 07-1237 (La. App. 3 Cir. 4/9/08), 981 So.2d 734 , writ denied, 08-1083 (La. 1/9/09), 998 So.2d 712 . In that case, officers recovered pills from under th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 201 So. 3d 379 - State v. Williams