969 So. 2d 855 - Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 16 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Mississippi Rule Evidence 801(c) defines hearsay as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Stated another way, an out-of-court statement is not hearsay unless the party offering the statement is attempting to prove that the statement is true. While it is true that neither the C.I. nor the law enforcement officers who testified for the state court identified Brown’s voice on the tape, the failure to identify Brown does not render the tape inadmissible. In fact, the tape was offered to prove the pre-arrangement conversations had taken place, as Echols and other law enforcement officers had previously testified. In effect the audiotape corroborated the various witnesses’ testimony. Therefore, sufficient testimony existed to admit the tape for the purpose of proving that the conversations had taken place as well as the gist of the conversations. The audiotape was not offered to show that Brown was involved in the prearrangement conversations, nor could it have been. A careful review of every word and sentence on the audiotape reveals no statement, which the State needed to prove as true. The tape contained such utterances as, “Ain’t got to left” ... “I want it hard man” ... ‘Yeah, I’m with my bride but I’m going to be walking out where I can see you man.” The State had no need to prove these statements, or any of the other statements on the audiotape, were true. T”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 758 F. Supp. 2d 347 - Brown v. Epps

2. “First, the opinion grossly misstates the law and improperly shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant by holding that “[t]he State was under no obligation to determine the identity of those persons whose voices were on the tape,” and that Brown “could have subpoenaed anyone he so desired.” Such a holding is directly contrary to the fundamental concept in criminal law that “it is the State’s burden to put on witnesses to establish guilt.” Fox v. State, 756 So.2d 753, 762 (Miss.2000) (citing McVeay v. State, 355 So.2d 1389 (Miss.1978)). The majority assumes that Brown knew the identity of the individuals on the tape, which, in turn, assumes his guilt. In other words, Brown must prove his innocence before he may claim any right to confront the witnesses against him. The law prohibits the prosecution from commenting on the failure of the defendant to call a witness, and this Court cannot use such reasoning to find that a defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him was not violated. See Ross v. State, 603 So.2d 857, 864 (Miss.1992) (“the failure of either party to examine a witness equally accessible to both parties is not a proper subject for comment before a jury”) (quoting Brown v. State, 200 Miss. 881, 887 , 27 So.2d 838, 840 (1946)). Second, as the proponent of the evidence, the State has “the burden of laying the proper foundation for the evidence.” Buford v. Riverboat Corp., 756 So.2d 765, 770 (Miss.2000). Because the identity of the voices go”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 758 F. Supp. 2d 347 - Brown v. Epps

3. “While it is true that neither the [confidential informant] nor the law enforcement officers who testified for the State could identify Brown's voice on the tape, the failure to identify Brown does not render the tape inadmissible. In fact, the tape was offered to prove that pre-arrangement conversations had taken place, as [the confidential informant] and other law enforcement officers had previously testified. In effect, the audiotape corroborated the various witnesses' testimony. Therefore, sufficient testimony existed to admit the tape for the purposes of proving that the conversations had taken place as well as the gist of those conversations. The audiotape was not offered to show that Brown was involved in the pre-arrangement conversations, nor could it have been .... The State had no need to prove these statements, or any of the other statements on the audiotape, were true. Thus, the statements were not hearsay, and the [circuit] court properly overruled Brown's hearsay objection.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cortavius Ferguson v. State of Mississippi