Seward v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 43 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]llegal drugs will often be unavailable for scientific analysis because their nature is to be consumed. As a practical matter, therefore, the evidentiary rule urged by Schrock would insulate from prosecution a large class of unlawful acts involving illicit drugs when the government happens upon the scene too late to seize a sample of the substance. To our knowledge, no court has held that scientific identification of a substance is an absolute prerequisite to conviction for a drug-related offense, and we too are unwilling to announce such a rule. In view of the limitations that such a burden would place on prosecutors, and in accordance with general evidentiary principles, courts have held that the government may establish the identity of a drug through cumulative circumstantial evidence. So long as the government produces sufficient evidence, direct or circumstantial, from which the jury is able to identify the substance beyond a reasonable doubt, the lack of scientific evidence is not objectionable. [11] (11) Further verifying Koffenberger's testimony regarding the identity of the substance, the drugs that police found on Conrad Street were scientifically tested by the medical examiner and determined to be heroin.”

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

2. “If a witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony about what he perceived may be in the form of inference and opinion, when: (1) The witness cannot readily, and with equal accuracy and adequacy, communicate what he has perceived to the trier of fact without testifying in terms of inferences or opinions, and his use of inferences or opinions will not mislead the trier of fact to the prejudice of the objecting party; and (2) The opinions and inferences do not require a special knowledge, sldll, experience or training. 3”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Alexander v. Cahill

3. “The drugs that tested positive as crack cocaine were the drugs found in the co-defendant Collins' mouth. There was testimony that Seward gave a small white chunky substance or pebbles to Collins, the co-defendant, shortly before Collins was arrested. There, therefore, was sufficient evidence identifying the substance Seward possessed as an illegal drug to uphold Seward's convictions.”

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