Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 96 SW3D 3 - Butcher v. Commonwealth

Butcher v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Delaware v. New York · Hallstrom v. Tillamook County · Commonwealth v. English · Slaughter v. Kentucky · Slaughter v. Commonwealth

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

  1. “[T]he presumption of innocence cannot require us to enter a prior probability of zero into Bayes’ Theorem.... A zero prior probability does not simply presume a defendant is innocent. Rather, a zero probability, in fact presumes that it was impossible for the defendant to be the father. When a zero prior probability is plugged into Bayes’ Theorem (the formula), naturally the probability of paternity results becomes 0%. The presumption of innocence does not require a jury to assume it was impossible for a defendant to commit the crime charged. Rather, it requires the jury to assume as a starting proposition that the defendant did not commit the crime, until proven otherwise.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.