Chambers v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The only eyewitnesses to the crime alleged were appellant and the complainant. The complainant consistently testified that the crime did not occur. Appellant testified, but was never asked to admit or deny the crime. * * * * * * The complainant, who was 12 years old at the time of trial, told the police officer conducting the videotape that appellant had been molesting her since the age of seven. The complainant’s 14-year-old half brother testified as a defense witness that appellant would often send him outside the family home, leaving appellant and the complainant alone inside. The complainant’s 10-year-old-cousin, ... testified in the State’s rebuttal that he once saw the complainant lying naked on a bed, while appellant was nearby putting on his underwear. The State conceded during jury argument, however, that that was not the incident alleged in the indictment or the one testified to on videotape by the complainant. It was rebuttal evidence, and the event described was never shown to have occurred on the date alleged in the indictment, within any particular year, or within the period of limitations for this offense. The only other evidence the State points to in support of the judgment is the complainant’s statements to her aunt and grandmother that appellant had asked her not to testify against him and that she loved appellant because he was a good stepfather to her.”

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

2. “Only by disregarding all sworn testimony from all eyewitnesses could the jury have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant exposed his genitals to the complainant on March 9,1986, as alleged. Only by relying wholly on repudiated prior inconsistent statements could the allegations have been proved. To find this evidence sufficient would make the trial a mere formality, the only evidence of guilt having been produced before indictment, ex parte, out of court, without oath, without confrontation, without notice, and then repudiated.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Forrest v. State

3. “[I]t would be irrational to hold that un-sworn hearsay evidence has the same, or more, probative value than the sworn testimony of the party who made the hearsay statement and had actual knowledge of the facts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Forrest v. State