Jackson v. State’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. “§ 8-201. DNA evidence—Postconviction review. [[Image here]] (b) Filing of petition.—Notwithstanding any other law governing postconviction relief, a person who is convicted of a crime of violence under § 14-101 of the Criminal Law Article may file a petition: (1) for DNA testing of scientific identification evidence that the State possesses that is related to the judgment of conviction; or (2) for a search by a law enforcement agency of a law enforcement data base or log for the purpose of identifying the source of physical evidence used for DNA testing. (c) New trial—A petitioner may move for a new trial under this section on the grounds that the conviction was based on unreliable scientific identification evidence and a substantial possibility exists that the petitioner would not have been convicted without the evidence. (d) Findings requiring DNA testing.— (1)Subject to subsection (e) of this section, a court shall order DNA testing if the court finds that: (1) a reasonable probability exists that the DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence relevant to a claim of wrongful conviction or sentencing; and (ii) the requested DNA test employs a method of testing generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. (2) A court shall order a data base search by a law enforcement agency if the court finds that a reasonable probability exists that the data base search will produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence relevant to a”

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

2. “(B) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW GOVERNING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, A PERSON WHO WAS CONVICTED OF AND SENTENCED FOR A FELONY MAY FILE A PETITION FOR DNA TESTING OF EVIDENCE THAT THE STATE POSSESSES AND THAT IS RELATED TO THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION. (C) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (D) OF THIS SECTION, A COURT SHALL ORDER DNA TESTING IF THE COURT FINDS THAT: (1) (I) THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBJECTED TO THE DNA TESTING THAT IS REQUESTED FOR REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PETITIONER; OR (II) THE TYPE OF DNA TEST BEING REQUESTED IS DIFFERENT FROM TESTS PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED AND WOULD HAVE A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PROVIDING A MORE PROBATIVE RESULT THAN TESTS PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED; (2) THE EVIDENCE CONTAINING DNA WAS SECURED IN RELATION TO THE CRIME FOR WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED; (3) THE EVIDENCE TO BE TESTED HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO A CHAIN OF CUSTODY SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTITUTED, TAMPERED WITH, REPLACED, OR ALTERED IN ANY MATERIAL ASPECT; (4) IDENTITY WAS AN ISSUE IN THE TRIAL THAT RESULTED IN THE PETITIONER’S CONVICTION; (5) A REASONABLE PROBABILITY EXISTS THAT THE DNA TESTING HAS THE SCIENTIFIC POTENTIAL TO PRODUCE RESULTS MATERIALLY RELEVANT TO THE PETITIONER’S ASSERTION OF INNOCENCE; AND (6) THE REQUESTED DNA TEST EMPLOYS A METHOD OF TESTING GENERALLY ACCEPTED WITHIN THE RELEVANT SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.”

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

3. “(B) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW GOVERNING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, A PERSON WHO WAS CONVICTED OF AND SENTENCED FOR A FELONY MAY FILE A PETITION FOR THE DNA TESTING OF EVIDENCE THAT THE STATE POSSESSES AND THAT IS RELATED TO THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION. (C) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (D) OF THIS SECTION, A COURT SHALL ORDER DNA TESTING IF THE COURT FINDS THAT: (1) THE EVIDENCE TO BE TESTED WAS NEVER PREVIOUSLY SUBJECTED TO THE DNA TESTING THAT IS REQUESTED BECAUSE THE TECHNOLOGY FOR SUCH TESTING WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER AT THE TRIAL; (2) THE EVIDENCE CONTAINING DNA WAS SECURED IN RELATION TO THE CRIME FOR WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED; (3) IDENTITY WAS AN ISSUE IN THE TRIAL THAT RESULTED IN THE PETITIONER’S CONVICTION: AND (4) A REASONABLE PROBABILITY EXISTS THAT THE DNA TESTING WILL PRODUCE RESULTS MATERIALLY RELEVANT TO THE PETITIONER'S ASSERTION OF INNOCENCE.”

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