Robinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In drug cases like this one, the physical evidence often has no distinctive characteristics so the circumstances, or more specifically the chain of custody, must be established. But the “proponent need not maintain physical objects * * * under round-the-clock watch, and need not call as authenticating witnesses each person who handled the object from the time of its recovery to the time of trial, so long as enough testimony is presented to permit a reasonable inference that the object offered is what the proponent claims it to be.” If the opponent seeks exclusion based on alteration of the evidence, he must support that charge with more than speculation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Roush v. Pari-Mutuel Commission · Pool v. State

2. “It was also a legitimate tactic to have his client voluntarily discuss his prior convictions before they were raised by the prosecution in cross-examination.”

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

3. “Onee appellant became a witness, the admissibility of his prior convictions was governed by Rule 609(a), W.R.E., rather than Rule 404(b).”

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