Cunningham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) The statements implicating Marshall with appellant were against Marshall's penal interest when said because the statements made Marshall a party to murder at a time the police were still investigating to determine who had committed the murder. (2) The statements accurately described some of the injuries, specifically, that the victim had been stabbed in the throat and abdomen. (3) Marshall was present at the party so as to have the opportunity to have participated in the murder. (4) Marshall may have had a motive to murder the victim. While testifying on the bill of exception, Johnson stated that Marshall said the victim used to get friends to beat him up and steal his money and drugs. (5) Marshall related these statements to Johnson, a person he may have considered a friend. (6) Appellant's trial testimony reflected that Marshall might have stabbed the victim in the stomach with a piece of bottle.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cunningham v. State

2. “there is other evidence reasonably tending to establish that the statement is not a fabrication. In general, the trustworthiness of the statement is clearly indicated when: 1) there is evidence independent of the statement itself that tends either directly or circumstantially to establish the truth of the matter asserted by the statement; or 2) there is additional evidence of the veracity of the declarant beyond that inherent in the potential for criminal liability, such as proof that the statement was against the declarant’s interest to an unusual or devastating degree, that the de-clarant repeated his story often and consistently, or that he could not have been motivated to falsify for the benefit of the accused. See 4 David W. Louisell & Christopher B. Mueller, Federal Evidence § 489, at 1159-60 (1980) (commenting on Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3), from which rule 803(24) is derived).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cunningham v. State

3. “[TJhey sat down and — which is Victor [appellant], Scott, Robert, and him— they sat down and planned to kill her. They made out a plan and ... he said he would — that he would help beat her with the beer bottles if he had help, and then he started describing how she was cut. Q. How did he describe that? Okay. A. He said they had cut her face from about the forehead around her eye and then down through her mouth — her mouth. They had cut her cheek down to her lips, and they had cut her throat. They had cut her abdomen to where her guts were hanging out, and he described it to me like this.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cunningham v. State