State v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 23 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... defendant argues it was error to preclude his counsel from arguing to the jury that the lack of fingerprint and hair sample evidence implied or indicated the police framed defendant and, therefore, defendant was innocent. _ We disagree. The state is not obligated to attempt to take fingerprints from articles allegedly touched by a defendant, e.g. State v. Holmes, 389 S.W.2d 30, 34 (Mo.1966), nor is it incumbent on the state to account for the absence of fingerprint evidence. Id. at 34 . Thus, in closing argument, an adverse inference may not be drawn from the state’s failure to take fingerprints. E.g., State v. Terry, 472 S.W.2d 426, 430 (Mo. banc 1971); State v. Holmes, supra at 34 . This reasoning is applicable here. The state does bear the burden of presenting sufficient evidence to make a submissible case. However, the state is not bound to gather and present all physical evidence conceivably germane to its case in chief. More precisely, as noted, the state is not required to account for its failure to gather or present such evidence. State v. Terry, supra; State v. Holmes, supra. Thus, in the present case, the refusal of the trial court to permit defense counsel to draw the adverse inference in question was consistent with prior case law and logic.”

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