Lorenzen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Evidence offered by accused as to the commission of the crime by another person must be limited to such facts as are inconsistent with his own guilt, and to such facts as raise a reasonable inference or presumption as to his own innocence; evidence which can have (no) other effect that than to cast a bare suspicion upon another, or to raise a conjectural inference as to the commission of the crime by another, is not admissible.... [B]efore such testimony can be received, there must be such proof of connection with it, such a train of facts or circumstances, as tends clearly to point out such other person as the guilty party. State v. Gregory, 198 S.C. 98 at 104-105 , 16 S.E.2d 532 at 534-535 (1941) (quoting 16 C.J., Criminal Law § 1085, p. 560 (1918) and 20 Am.Jur., Evidence § 265, p. 254 (1939); footnotes omitted). Cited in Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 328 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 , 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006). [3]”

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

2. “Evidence offered by accused as to the commission of the crime by another person must be limited to such facts as are inconsistent with his own guilt, and to such facts as raise a reasonable inference or presumption as to his own innocence; evidence which can have (no) other effect that than to cast a bare suspicion upon another, or to raise a conjectural inference as to the commission of the crime by another, is not admissible.... [BJefore such testimony can be received, there must be such proof of connection with it, such a train of facts or circumstances, as tends clearly to point out such other person as the guilty party. State v. Gregory, 198 S.C. 98 at 104-105 , 16 S.E.2d 532 at 534-535 (1941) (quoting 16 C.J., Criminal Law § 1085, p. 560 (1918) and 20 Am.Jur., Evidence § 265, p. 254 (1939); footnotes omitted). Cited in Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 328 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 , 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006). 3”

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

3. “A PCR court's findings will be upheld on appeal if there is 'any evidence of probative value sufficient to support them.' " (citation omitted)). The letter would have been highly beneficial to Freiburger for multiple reasons. First, the letter stated Lt. Cate was "of the opinion”

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