State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 12 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the present ease the only evidence against appellant is the statements and testimony of the three girls. When read separately or together, the accounts of alleged abuse are inconsistent, self-contradictory, lacking in experiential detail, and, at times, border on the absurd.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Iowa v. Erwin Garduno Rodriguez · State v. Robbins

2. “In sum, the court found that [N.C.] was a credible witness, that there are some discrepancies in her story, but I found those to be consistent with her principal testimony. The court also found that there were some problems or some elements that are troublesome in [Garduno's] testimony. In his custodial interview, he began by saying he didn't know who she was, he then quickly changed to I didn't like her at all, and at some point said that he didn't like her because she acted like a [fifteen]-year-old girl. The balance of the defendant's testimony-or witnesses were that the children were not sleeping in the morning and that it was chaotic and there were always five or six people in the room. [Garduno's] own testimony at several points talked about [N.C.] sleeping for [thirty] minutes in the morning and talked about where the children slept. The court essentially, in evaluating all of the evidence, finds that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant placed his hand or fingers on [N.C.'s] genitalia while she was under the age of [twelve] years and that he threatened to kill her or her family if she said anything. The court finds that by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty of sexual abuse in the second degree in violation of Iowa Code sections 709.1, 709.3(1)(b), and 903B.1.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Iowa v. Erwin Garduno Rodriguez

3. “The rule that it is for the jury to reconcile the conflicting testimony of a witness does not apply where the only evidence in support of a controlling fact is that of a witness who so contradicts himself as to render finding of facts thereon a mere guess. We may concede that, ordinarily, contradictory statements of a witness do not make an issue of fact; and that such situation may deprive the testimony of all probative force.”

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