Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
40 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Frye v. United States · Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey · 895 So. 2d 836 - Bush v. State
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]nless we can safely say that the trial court abused its judicial discretion in allowing or disallowing evidence so as to prejudice a party in a civil case, or the accused in a criminal case.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“D-ll: The Court instructs the jury that “circumstantial evidence” is defined as evidence which without going directly' to prove the existence of a fact, gives rise to an inference that such a fact exists. Circumstantial evidence is presented where there are no eyewitnesses to' a crime nor a confession made by the defendant. ' [[Image here]] D-12: The Court instructs the Jury that if the State has relied on circumstantial evidence to establish its theory of guilty of the defendant, Nathaniel Cooper, then the evidence for the State must be so strong as to establish the guilt of Nathaniel Cooper, beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. [[Image here]] D-16: The Court instructs thé Jury that if there be any fact or circumstances in this case susceptible to two interpretations, one favorable and the other unfavorable to Nathaniel Cooper, and when the jury has considered such fact or circumstance with all the other evidence, there is a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, the jury must resolve such doubt in favor of Nathaniel Cooper, and place upon such fact or circumstance the interpretation favorable to Nathaniel Cooper.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.