Cherb v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 97 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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The test of sufficiency of corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice witness is to eliminate the evidence of the accomplice from consideration and then examine evidence of other witnesses to ascertain if there be inculpatory evidence or evidence of incriminating character which tends to connect the accused with the commission of the offense. If there is such evidence, the corroboration is sufficient, otherwise it is not.””

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Booth v. State · Chambers v. State

2. “"`This Court also said in Minor v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 1 , 299 S.W. 422, 1927 , cited by the court in Edwards v. State, 427 S.W.2d 629, 632 , Tex.Crim. App.1968: "The law forbidding a conviction upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice does not demand that there be direct evidence pointing to the accused as the offender, but merely requires that there be `other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed' ... Circumstances proved by credible witnesses may be as potent as direct testimony intending to connect the accused with the commission of the offense. The State is not called upon to point to some single or isolated fact which is itself, unrelated to other proven facts, will be sufficient corroboration. It is the combined and cumulative weight of the evidence furnished by non-accomplice witnesses which supply the test. If by this rule it appears on appeal that before the jury there was proof confirming the testimony of the accomplice to material facts tending to connect the accused with the commission of the offense, the law is satisfied."'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Reynolds v. State · Kennedy v. State

3. ““A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dillard v. State · Quintanilla v. State