Sanborn v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Leonard v. State (1998), Daniel v. State (2003)
31 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.
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Faretta v. California · McGuire v. United States · Warden, Nevada State Prison v. Lyons · Lyons v. State
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the evidence must be newly discovered; (2) it must be material to the defense; (3) it could not have been discovered and produced for trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (4) it must not be cumulative; (5) it must indicate that a different result is probable on retrial; (6) it must not simply be an attempt to contradict or discredit a former witness; and (7) it must be the best evidence the case admits.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hennie v. State · Walker v. State“Jade Seka was convicted in 2001 of two counts of murder and two counts of robbery related to the 1998 killings of his boss Peter i9r33 Limanni and contract worker Eric Hamilton. Both bodies were transported in work vehicles and dumped in remote desert areas. Although substantial circumstantial and physical evidence pointed to Seka as the killer, no physical evidence, aside from fingerprints on a board covering Hamilton's body, connected Seka to the desert locations where the bodies were found. Genetic marker analysis (DNA) testing at the time of trial could only exclude Seka from DNA collected from a few pieces of evidence. But DNA testing performed in 2018 and 2019 both excluded Seka from DNA on several pieces of evidence and discovered other DNA profiles on some of that evidence. In 2020, based on these new DNA test results, the district court granted a new trial. NRS 176.515(1) allows a court to grant a new trial within two years after the original trial "on the ground of newly discovered evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The grant or denial of a new trial on [the ground of newly discovered evidence] is within the trial court's discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent its abuse.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Servin v. State
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.