State v. Reid’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 54 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] conviction may be based entirely on circumstantial evidence where the facts are `so clearly interwoven and connected that the finger of guilt is pointed unerringly at the Defendant and the Defendant alone.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Rice · State v. Rogers

2. “considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Butler · State v. Rice

3. “To establish probable cause an affidavit must set forth facts from which a reasonable conclusion may be drawn that the evidence will be found in the place for which the warrant authorizes a search. State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 105 (Tenn.1998); State v. Longstreet, 619 S.W.2d 97, 99 (Tenn.1981). In addition, the affidavit must contain information which will allow a magistrate to determine whether the facts are too stale to establish probable cause at the time issuance of the warrant is sought. Vann, 976 S.W.2d at 105 . While the lapse of time between the commission of a crime and the issuance of a search warrant may affect the likelihood that incriminating evidence will be found, probable cause is a case-by-case determination. State v. Meeks, 876 S.W.2d 121, 124 (Tenn.Crim.App.), perm. app. denied (Tenn.1993). In making this determination, courts should consider whether the criminal activity under investigation was an isolated event or a protracted pattern of conduct. Courts also should consider the nature of the property sought, the normal inferences as to where a criminal would hide the evidence, and the perpetrator’s opportunity to dispose of incriminating evidence. State v. Dellinger, 79 S.W.3d 458, 469-70 (Tenn.2002); State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 572 (Tenn.1993). ... [T]he criminal conduct under investigation was not an isolated event. As indicated in the warrants, the crimes occurred almost one month apart, with the last crime committed on March 23, 1997, less than t”

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