Harris v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 68 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When it is clear from the evidence that the witness was not an accomplice, no charge need be given to the jury either that a witness is an accomplice as a matter of law or that the jury is to decide whether the witness is an accomplice, [citations omitted] However, if there is a conflict in the evidence the court should charge the jury on the question of whether the witness was an accomplice as a matter of fact.”

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

2. “accessory after the fact” as party to crime and replaces with distinct crime of "hindering apprehension or prosecution”). Prior to the 1974 amendments to the Penal Code, and the law under which Reynolds was decided, an accessory was defined as "one who, knowing that an offense has been committed, conceals the offender, or gives him any other aid in order that he may evade an arrest or trial ...”

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

3. “A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corrobo rated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.”

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