State v. Bush’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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the trial court gave the jury instructions on the state’s burden to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The part thereof relevant to the instant case reads, “ ... it places upon the prosecution the burden of proving a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of every material element of the crime charged.” This passage includes within its ambit the tenor of [the instruction requested by the defense]. If the jurors were to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to every material element, of necessity they would have had to resolve evidence susceptible to two constructions unfavorable to defendant. There is before us neither evidence nor a contention that the jury did otherwise than as instructed. We conclude that the instruction requested by the [defense] which was refused stated the same proposition of law as that contained in the trial court’s instructions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Torres

2. “Direct evidence means evidence that directly proves a fact without any inference or deduction having to be made in order to prove that fact. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of certain facts or circumstances from which a reasonable inference or deduction can be made that another fact is true. It is not necessary that facts be proved by direct evidence. They may be proved also by circumstantial evidence, or by a combination of both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as means of proof. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Torres

3. “Circumstantial evidence in this respect is no different from testimonial evidence. Admittedly, circumstantial evidence may in some cases point to a wholly incorrect result. Yet this is equally true of testimonial evidence. In both instances, a jury is asked to weigh the chances that the evidence correctly points to guilt against the possibility of inaccuracy or ambiguous inference. In both, the jury must use its experience with people and events in weighing the probabilities. If the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, we can require no more.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 481 So. 2d 793 - MacK v. State