Driskell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 49 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. WALL v. STATE · 2008 OK CR 19 - Williams v. State

2. “That an individual who commits or attempts to commit abnormal sex offenses is likely to have such a mental 'plan' finds recognition in the fact that when a defendant is charged with the commission of sexual offense the law is more liberal in admitting as proof of his guilt evidence of similar sexual offenses committed by him than it is in admitting evidence of similar offenses when a defendant is charged with the commission of non-sexual crimes.”

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

3. “We acknowledge, however, that not all scientific evidence should be admitted in a criminal trial. Scientific evidence “must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in a particular field ...” Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013 (1923). Expert opinion without a generally accepted scientific basis may be given undue weight by the jury, thereby denying the defendant a fair trial.”

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