Marable v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

209 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 211 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * * * * “(1) It should be acted upon with caution; (2) all the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, as that is to be compared with all the facts proved; (3) the facts must exclude every other reasonable theory or hypothesis except that of guilt; (Lancaster v. State, 91 Tenn. 267 , 18 S.W. 777 ) and (4) the facts must establish such a certainly of guilt of the accused as to convince the mind beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who committed the offense.” Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, Vol. 2, pages .1605-1606. “It is not necessary that each particular fact should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt if enough facts are proved to satisfy the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, of all the facts necessary to constitute the crime charged * * *. Before a verdict of guilty is justified, the circumstances, taken together, must be of a conclusive nature and tendency, leading on the whole, to a satisfactory conclusion and producing in effect a moral certainty that the accused, and no one else, committed the offense.” Wharton, supra, pages 1609-1610.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 256 - Pruitt v. State · Overton v. State

2. ““Then it is a well recognized principle of criminal law that: ‘The actions and behavior of accused when charged with the crime, or when confronted with the consequences or with the scene or surroundings of the crime with which he is charged, or when brought before the prosecuting witness for identification, or at the trial, are peculiarly relevant.' In receiving evidence of this kind, it is not easy, if at all possible, for courts to draw any line segregating those acts which to some minds may seem significant of guilt from those which are irrelevant because justifying no such inference. Any ex post facto indication by accused of a desire to evade prosecution may be shown as one of series of circumstances from which guilt may be inferred.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shockley v. State · Sotka v. State