Pitman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A probation revocation hearing is in the nature of a civil proceeding. As such, the alleged violation need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation. As with other sufficiency questions, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses when reviewing a probation revocation. We look only to the evidence that supports the judgment and any reasonable inferences flowing therefrom. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s decision that the probationer committed any violation, revocation of probation is appropriate.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baxter v. State · Brabandt v. State

2. “Court: Okay, during the recess I did a little research and there is a case called Pittman [Pitman] v. State, ah, issued May 3, 2001, by the Court of Appeals, I don’t have a northeastern cite on it, in that case the State was permitted to question as to basic identifying information including the defendant’s name, address, date of birth, social security number, conviction in the pending probationary matter and pending charges in another Court. I will permit the defendant to be called, I will permit her to be questioned as to those matters. Is there other record by either the State or the defense at this time? State: No. Defense: Your Honor the defendant continues to assert her Fifth Amendment privileges. Court: Ma’am, I’m going to put you under oath and then I’m going to order you to answer the questions that are asked. Packer: Well, I still won’t. Court: Are you saying you will defy direct Court order to that effect? Packer: Right, I don’t even know what this is all about and I still won’t. Court: All you are going to be asked is your identity and whether you ... Packer: Well, I still won’t because I can plead my Fifth Amendment. Court: You are in direct criminal contempt of Court, you are sentenced to ninety days in Vanderburgh County Jail.”

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

3. “judges may consider any relevant evidence bearing some substantial indicia of reliability. This includes reliable hearsay. Judges are not, of course, bound to admit all evidence presented to the court. In fact, the absence of strict evidentiary rules places particular importance on the fact-finding role of judges in assessing the weight, sufficiency and reliability of proffered evidence. This assessment, then, carries with it a special level of judicial responsibility and is subject to appellate review. Nevertheless, it is not subject to the Rules of Evidence (nor to the common law rules of evidence in effect prior to the Rules of Evidence).”

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