306 So. 2d 675 - State v. Pryor’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The rule as to circumstantial evidence is: assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 398 So. 2d 1074 - State v. LaFleur · 467 So. 2d 858 - State v. Grissom

2. “An authoritative work on the subject summarizes the jurisprudence on this issue. Moenssens, Fingerprints and the Law 118-25 (1969) (Inbau Law Enforcement Series). The work notes, pp. 118-19: `To support a conviction based solely or primarily on fingerprint evidence, it must be shown that the defendant's fingerprints were found under such circumstances as to exclude any reasonable possibility of consistency with innocence. If fingerprints of the accused are found at the place where a crime has been committed and in such manner as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that the fingerprints were impressed at the time that the crime was committed, then a conviction on the sole evidence of such fingerprints may be sustained.' Again, p. 120: `The finding of a person's fingerprints at crime scenes is not proof of his guilt unless circumstances are such that the fingerprints could only have been impressed there at the time when the crime was committed.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dukes · 932 So. 2d 736 - State v. Surratt