Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 SW3D 587 - Ricky Harris v. State

Ricky Harris v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Burford v. State · State v. Mixon · John Paul Seals v. State of Tennessee · Norton v. Everhart

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

  1. “Upon a showing by the defendant that the defendant was without fault in failing to present certain evidence at the proper time, a writ of error coram nobis will lie for subsequently or newly discovered evidence relating to matters which were litigated at the trial if the judge determines that such evidence may have resulted in a different judgment, had it been presented at trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “Coram nobis claims may be based upon any 'newly discovered evidence relating to matters litigated at the trial' so long as the petitioner also establishes that the petitioner was 'without fault' in failing to present the evidence at the proper time.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Indeed, if the State's position in this appeal were to prevail, criminal defendants, in order to protect their rights to file a coram nobis petition, would be required in every case to examine every prosecution file following their convictions in order to determine whether exculpatory evidence was withheld. We cannot believe this is something the State really wants. "[T]he State's finality interest is seriously compromised when the prosecution has suppressed evidence in violation of its constitutional duty and is directly responsible for causing the delay in finality.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.