Cameron v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 5 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The rule concerning evidence necessary to sustain a conviction for perjury is stated in Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 12th Ed., Vol. 3, § 956, n. 397 thusly: ‘It is generally held that to sustain a conviction for perjury there must be the testimony of two witnesses, or the testimony of one witness which is corroborated by other circumstances. * * ‘The corroborating evidence in perjury prosecutions must be clear, positive, and strong, so that, in connection with the evidence of the witness who testifies directly, it will convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. ‘The corroboration must go beyond slight and indifferent particulars. It must tend to show the statements alleged to have been falsely sworn. Corroboration is required for the false testimony as a whole, but not for every constituent element of it. If the falsity of the defendant’s statement is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, there is sufficient ground to sustain a conviction.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pitman v. State

2. ““If the evidence had been obtained by listening in over the receiver of the extension, either [party] could publish the conversation . . . But neither party under our statute can tap the telephone lines, for such would be an unauthorized infringement on the company lines “There can be no legal tap of such facility without the consent of the person who orginates the conversation, the one who responds to it, and the telephone company. A legal tap could not be made by any party in any other way.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pearson v. State

3. ““Any person who . . . fraudulently or without legal authority connects to any telephone or telegraph line or wire any instrument or other apparatus capable of being used in intercepting messages, communications or conversations, is guilty of a misdemeanor . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pearson v. State