Matthews v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““While much of the evidence is circumstantial, this Court has often held a criminal case may be proved circumstantially and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom have the same probative effect as direct testimony. Young v. State, Okl.Cr., 373 P.2d 273 . Additionally, circumstantial evidence need not exclude every hypothesis or negate any possibility other than guilt. Bailey v. U. S., 410 F.2d 1209 (10th Cir.1969). And finally, it is the exclusive province of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the facts. Jones v. State, Okl.Cr., 468 P.2d 805 , and where there is competent evidence from which the jury might reasonably conclude the defendant is guilty, the case will not be reversed on appeal on a contention that the evidence is not sufficient. Brewer v. State, Okl. Cr., 452 P.2d 597 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gossett v. State · Davidson v. State

2. ““. . . It rarely happens that perpetrators of an offense, committed in the manner here proven, can be shown by witnesses who saw and recognized the defendants in the act, and resort must therefore ordinarily be had to circumstantial evidence.””

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