12 Cal. 3d 641 - People v. Hitch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 4 district · 613 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 636 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “adhere to rigorous and systematic procedures”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 39 Cal. 3d 81 - People v. Michael L. · People v. Trombetta

2. “Due process imposes certain obligations on law enforcement and investigatory agencies to insure every criminal trial is a "search for truth, not an adversary game". . . . One such constitutional obligation, the disclosure of evidence to the defendant, is well established. " [Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." . . . Under the rule governing suppression of evidence, the circumstances surrounding the nondisclosure, including the motivation of the party responsible for the suppression, are irrelevant. . . . This is so because the constitutional requirement is "not punishment of society for misdeeds of a prosecutor but avoidance of an unfair trial to the accused." . . . The United States Supreme Court has not attempted to precisely define "material evidence" or the degree of prejudice which must be shown by the defendant to make out a violation. . . . Other courts have defined materiality quite broadly. ... Of course, neither the police nor the prosecution are to decide for the defense what is favorable or material evidence. . . . If the defense has established that the suppressed evidence is material, the court may conclude that due process has been denied and that the error can be corrected by a new trial at which the defendant will have full access to the evidence.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. MacE · State v. Daw

3. “For the future, ‘earnest efforts’ will be defined quite strictly____ Of course, the regular procedures for preservation must be adequate to the task. Systematic non-preservation of tapes involving Government undercover agents — as in the cases before us — might be regular, but would be insufficiently protective of defendants’ right to discovery. Accordingly, we hold that sanctions for nondisclosure based on loss of evidence will be invoked in the future unless the Government can show that it has promulgated, enforced and attempted in good faith to follow rigorous and systematic procedures designed to preserve all discoverable evidence gathered in the course of a criminal investigation. The burden, of course, is on the Government to make this showing. Negligent failure to comply with the required procedures will provide no excuse ... A right so crucial as that of disclosure ought not to be built on ... shifting sands. It ought, rather, to be protected by rules, systematically applied and systematically enforced. (Emphasis in part in original, in part added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Fain · 125 Cal. App. 3d 584 - People v. Bally