State v. Maloney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

84 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is settled law that any one penalty does not abridge the rights of a person under the Equal Protection Clause so long as no one person is subject to any different or greater punishment than others of the same class. (Citation omitted.) Equal protection of the laws here means only that the death penalty may be applied to all persons in the State in a like position. And, in Arizona, all persons charged with murder in the first degree face possible imposition of the extreme penalty. Equality of treatment does not destroy individualization of sentencing to fit the crime and the individual. Persons convicted of the same crime can constitutionally be given different sentences. (Citation omitted.)” 464 P.2d at 799 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. White · State v. Arnett

2. ““A[s] stated heretofore, the introduction of the missing items would have contributed nothing. Had they still been in existence at the time of trial the State would have been under no obligation to offer them as evidence. And the instruction still would have been proper.! ‘There is' no compulsion on the prosecution to call any particular witness or to make any particular tests so long as there is fairly presented to the court the material evidence bearing upon the charge for which the defendant is on trial.’ People v. Chaplin, 145 Cal.App.2d 740 , 303 P.2d 365 (1965); People v. Tuthill, 31 Cal.2d 92 , 187 P.2d 16 (1947).” State v. Maloney, 105 Ariz. 348, 354 , 464 P.2d 793, 799 (1970).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Miller · State v. Noell

3. “"It is now, though, an established proposition that disclosure of evidence favorable to an accused is not restricted to `discovery' rights, and that there exists a broad duty on the part of the prosecution to reveal such evidence to the accused. * * *." State v. Maloney, 105 Ariz. 348, 351 , 464 P.2d 793, 796 (1970). See also Sec. 2.1, Discovery and Procedure Before Trial, Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice of the American Bar Association.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. MacUmber · State v. Smith