State v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “". . . [c]ourts have traditionally been cautious of convictions obtained upon the uncorroborated testimony of persons who have participated in the crime. . . . [F]or a jury to assess the credibility of a witness, it must be aware of facts which might cause a witness to be less than fully truthful or untruthful. The determination of that credibility is solely within the province of the jury and it is entitled to any information which might bear on that credibility."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Parker · State v. Brooks

2. ““Defendant also contends that, although Rule 24.04, V.A.M.R. authorizes joinder of two distinct felonies in one indictment, it does not authorize conviction on both offenses. State v. Johnson, 499 S.W.2d 371 (Mo.1973) approves conviction on both offenses charged jointly under Rule 24.04. The joinder was not improper here. The rule authorizes joinder of two or more offenses, even though separate and distinct ‘. . . which are based on the same act or on two or more acts which are part of the same transaction or on two or more acts or transactions which constitute parts of a common scheme or plan. . . .’ The blinding of Miss Chestnut was, under the State’s evidence, to prevent her identification of the robbers. Both crimes were part of a common scheme — the robbery.””

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

3. “Suppression of material evidence justifies a new trial irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 84 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 [1195], 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); State v. McClain, 498 S.W.2d 798 (Mo. banc 1973). ‘When the “reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence,” nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within this general rule.’ State v. McClain supra at 800 quoting from Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). State v. Brooks, supra, at 174 .”

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