Commonwealth v. Winfield’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 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 main evidence presented against the defendant was the medical evidence and the defendant’s recorded police interview. From the medical evidence, the jury could have concluded that the burns and skull fracture of the victim were inflicted shortly after midday on October 13, 2005, and that the victim would have cried aloud as she suffered the injuries. The jury could also infer that, because the victim would have cried aloud, the injuries were inflicted at a time when no one was around to hear the victim’s cries. Moreover, from the defendant’s prior recorded statements to the police, the jury were aware that, on the day the injuries were inflicted, the defendant was at home during midday with only the victim and his eight month old daughter. Therefore, the defendant was the only adult who had access to the victim during the time span in which the injuries occurred. In addition to having access to the victim, the defendant had the means to commit the crimes. In the bathroom of the defendant’s home was a small curling iron. After viewing photographs of the victim’s injuries, the jury could find that the pattern of the burns to the victim’s anus were consistent with having been inflicted by a hot instrument the same shape and size of a small curling iron. Finally, the jury could consider the fact that the defendant, and not his wife, had expressed displeasure over the presence of the victim in his home. In his recorded interview, the defendant stated that he never wanted his w”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Winfield v. O'Brien

2. “In order to convict on circumstantial evidence, it is not necessary to show that it was not in the power of any other person than the defendant to commit the crime”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 95 Mass. App. Ct. 156 - Commonwealth v. Quinones