Foreman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “[T]he similarity of the prior act and the charged offense remains part of a court’s analysis in determining whether to admit the evidence.... First, the less similar the prior acts, the less relevant they are to the charged crime, and therefore the less likely they will be admissible. Second, the less similar the prior acts, the more likely that the probative value of this evidence will be “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Burnett v. State · 9 So. 3d 765 - Corson v. State

2. “[i]n a criminal case in which the defendant is charged with a crime involving child molestation, evidence of the defendant's commission of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of child molestation is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 975 So. 2d 1277 - Kane v. State

3. “other crimes, wrongs, or acts of child molestation”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 975 So. 2d 1277 - Kane v. State