Ex Parte Robbins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Applicant has failed to prove that the new evidence unquestionably establishes his innocence. [The State’s medical examiner] can no longer stand by. her trial testimony, but rather than completely retracting her trial opinion, she is of the current opinion that the cause and manner of [the victim’s] death are “undetermined.” [The State’s medical examiner] cannot rule out her trial opinion as a possibility of how [the victim] died. Hence [her] re-evaluation falls short of the requisite showing for actual innocence. [[Image here]] Our conclusion is evident when [the State’s medical examiner’s] opinion is placed in the context of the trial record, including [the petitioner’s expert’s] opinion (which the jury heard at trial and did not believe) and the nonmedical evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jessie McKim v. Jay Cassady, Warden, JCCC

2. “Moore's trial testimony is not false just because her re-evaluation of the evidence has resulted in a different, 'undetermined' opinion.... Moore's trial testimony did not result in a false impression of the facts.... Moore testified openly about the autopsy findings and her professional opinion regarding the cause and manner of Tristin's death.... Moore explained the reasoning behind her original conclusions that Tristin's death was asphyxia-related. Also, neither Moore's conclusion nor the autopsy evidence upon which she relied has been entirely refuted by any expert.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Robbins, Neal Hampton

3. “Who should decide whether the newly discovered unreliability of the expert scientific testimony was so crucial to the original jury’s verdict that the accuracy of that verdict can no longer be relied upon? I fall back upon the wisdom and experience of the habeas judge — the “Johnny — on—the—Spot” factfinder to whom we will defer whenever the record supports his essential factual findings. 19”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Ex Parte Cathy Lynn HENDERSON