Walker v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Standridge v. State (2004), Conte v. State (2015)
40 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Hinkston v. State · Burmingham v. State · Noel v. State · Jones v. State · Zinger 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have held that a defendant may introduce evidence tending to show that someone other than the defendant committed the crime charged, but such evidence is inadmissible unless it points directly to the guilt of the third party. Evidence which does no more than create an inference or conjecture as to another’s guilt is inadmissible. [Burmingham v. State, 342 Ark. 95 , 27 S.W.3d 351 (2000) ]; Zinger v. State, 313 Ark. 70 , 852 S.W.2d 320 (1993)(citing State v. Wilson, 322 N.C. 117 , 367 S.E.2d 589 (1988)). This rule does not require that any evidence, however remote, must be admitted to show a third party’s possible culpability; evidence of mere motive or opportunity to commit the crime in another person, without more, will not suffice to raise a reasonable doubt about a defendant’s guilt. There must be direct or circumstantial evidence linking the third person to the actual perpetration of the crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Conte v. State“[a] defendant may introduce evidence tending to show that someone other than the defendant committed the crime charged, but such evidence is inadmissible unless it points directly to the guilt of the third party. Evidence which does no more than create an inference or conjecture as to another’s guilt is inadmissible. [[Image here]] [T]he rule does not require that any evidence, however remote, must be admitted to show a third party’s possible culpability ... [EJvidence of mere motive or opportunity to commit the crime in another person, without more, will not suffice to raise a reasonable doubt about a defendant’s guilt: there must be direct or circumstantial evidence linking the third person to the actual perpetration of the crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Conte v. State
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.