Gayle v. LeFevre’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate ·

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

1. “Q Now, would you tell us the nature of your eye condition that requires you to wear glasses at this time? A (No response.) Q Are you nearsighted? The Court-. Just a moment. That required you to wear glasses— Defense: At this time. The Court: Why do you have to wear glasses now? The Witness: I have a defect with my left eye. The Court: Were you able to see that night without your glasses? The Witness: I just started wearing glasses two months. The Court: You never used to wear glasses? The Witness: No, sir. The Court: Was your eyesight all right? The Witness: Yes, sir. Q When did you start wearing glasses, Mr. Jones? A About two months ago. Q And before you started to wear glasses two month ago, did you feel that there was something you were missing by reason of not having glasses, that you weren’t seeing as well as you used to, say, let’s say five years ago? The Court: He’s talking about two months ago, just before you started to wear glasses. . The Witness: Yes, sir. Q You felt that there was something deficient in your eyesight two, three months ago, is that correct? A Yes, sir. Tr. at 287-88. By Defense Counsel: Q Now, for how long before you got these glasses did you feel that your eyesight was less than perfect, less than it used to be, let’s say? A I’d say about three years ago. Q But you didn’t take any steps to correct your vision three years ago? A Yeah, I used to get eye drops from a doctor. Q Anything else? A Nor, sir. He ordered glasses for me, but I didn’t pay it”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gayle v. Scully

2. “The prosecution’s entire case rested on the following: the testimony of two eyewitnesses, Gayle’s flight when apprehended, and his supposed oral confession to Detective Bankhead immediately after the apprehension. The defendant took the stand, gave an alibi, but produced no witnesses. One of the eyewitnesses (Jones) [had] denied in his first statement that he was even at the party where the homicide took place, admitted on cross-examination that he had had five drinks of 150-proof Jamaican rum before he arrived at the party, and had bad eyesight in one eye. The other prosecution eyewitness (Foster) claimed that he did not discuss the case with anyone, including his cousin, Jones, until a couple of weeks before the trial, more than two and a half years after the killing. Tr. 401-03. Gayle’s running upon apprehension was possibly explicable by the fact that he was an illegal alien and the apprehending detectives were in plain clothes. The detective’s testimony as to a practically unsolicited, unwritten, un-witnessed confession, coupled with no inquiry as to motive, seems suspect on its face. The trial totally turned on credibility. The one piece of evidence that might have substantiated the eyewitnesses’ version of the killing by demonstrating powder burns — the decedent Nune’s [sic] clothing — was not produced even though one would assume it was kept as evidence. In such a case, the judge’s role assumed great importance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gayle v. Scully

3. “The Court: You were able to do a welding job? The Witness: Yes, sir. The Court: That requires good eyesight, does it not? The Witness: It does.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gayle v. Scully