Fowler v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
48
cited by 48 later decisions
1
states following
May 2018
most recently cited
48 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Davis v. Alaska · United States v. Abel · Dawson v. Delaware · Travis v. State · Jones v. State
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a general rule, all relevant evidence is admissible. Ark .R. Evid. 402. Relevant evidence is any evidence having a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Ark .R. Evid. 401. A witness’s credibility is always an issue, subject to attack by any party. Dansby v. State 338 Ark. 697 , 1 S.W.3 403 (1999); Ark ,R. Evid. 607. The scope of cross-examination extends to matters of credibility. Ark .R. Evid. 611. A matter is not collateral if the evidence is relevant to show bias, knowledge, intent, or interest. See Dansby v. State, supra; Arthur v. Zearley, [ 337 Ark. 125 , 992 S.W.2d 67 (1999)]; Pyle v. State, 314 Ark. 165 , 862 S.W.2d 833 (1993); Goodwin v. State, 263 Ark. 856 , 568 S.W.2d 3 (1978). Proof of bias is “almost always relevant because the jury, as finder of fact and weigher of credibility, has historically been entitled to assess all evidence which might bear on the accuracy and truth of a witness’ testimony.” United States v. Abel, [ 469 U.S. 45, 52 (1984)]. In other words, matters affecting the credibility of a witness are always relevant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Cross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested .... The cross-examiner is not only permitted to delve into the [witness’s] story to test the [witness’s] perceptions and memory, but the cross-examiner has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit, the witness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ridling v. State“impeachment by proof of conduct under Rule 608(b) is a separate matter from impeachment by proof of bias,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.