Edwards v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If the petitioner moves for a new trial “on the grounds that the conviction was based on unreliable scientific evidence,” then the court must determine whether a “substantial possibility exists that the petitioner would not have been convicted without the evidence.” CP § 8-201 (c) (emphasis added). Similarly, “[i]f the results of the postconviction DNA testing are favorable to the petitioner,” then the court must find “that a substantial possibility exists that the petitioner would not have been convicted if the DNA testing results had been known or introduced at trial” before ordering a new trial. CP § 8—201 (i)(2)(iii) (emphasis added). Because this “substantial possibility” standard relates to whether the outcome of the petitioner’s trial would have been different, it is a higher threshold than the “reasonable probability” standard, which relates only to whether the DNA testing has the potential to produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence, not what the effect of that evidence would have been at trial.”

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

2. “were items that the perpetrator could have possibly or conceivably come into contact with, but the trial record in th[e] case contains no evidence that the perpetrator actually did come into contact with these items. Unlike the cigarette lighter ... the absence of [Mr. Edwards’] DNA on these items would not tend to establish that he was not the perpetrator of this crime, as the perpetrator of this crime was never alleged to or shown to have come into contact with these items.”

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

3. “the nature of the item (e.g., whether it is an instrumentality of the crime), the physical proximity between where the item was located and where the crime occurred, and the temporal proximity between when the perpetrator touched the item and when the crime occurred.”

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