10 Or. App. 22 - State v. Fleischman’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently November 1998
16 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We have examined the subject file and do not agree with the conclusion of the trial judge that none of the material contained therein would have been of assistance to defendant’s attorneys in testing on cross-examination the credibility of ex-Officer Loos’s testimony. The state having been permitted to show in detail the two prior incidents where defendant had allegedly demonstrated hostility toward the police, should not have been allowed to block inspection of the personnel file and thus hamper deféndant’s efforts to explore and test fully the accuracy and reliability of the prosecution’s evidence thereof. The state cannot refuse to disclose this evidence on the grounds that it was in the possession of an agency other than the prosecutor’s office, where, as here, the prosecutor knew of its existence, [citations omitted] Nor can the state invoke the privilege claim . . . which it attempted to make in the trial court [footnote omitted]. When the state chooses to prose cute an individual for crime, it is not free to deny him access to evidence that is relevant to guilt or innocence, even when otherwise such evidence is or might be privileged against disclosure, [citations omitted] It follows, therefore, that the refusal of the trial judge to allow defense counsel to examine the subject file prior to cross-examining ex-Officer Loos was reversible error. We do not mean to suggest that criminal defendants can routinely have access to the personnel records of policemen who testif”
1 later decision 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.