Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 125 SO3D 403 - State v. Pierre

State v. Pierre’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Kyles v. Whitley · Imbler v. Pachtman · Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc · Schlup v. Delo

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

  1. “Although this Court declined to hold that such claims are, in fact, cognizable in collateral attacks on final convictions, a question also left Lopen in federal habeas proceedings by the United States Supreme Court in Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 417 , 113 S.Ct. 853, 869 , 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993), we observed that such claims must necessarily involve “new, material, noncumulative and conclusive’evidence which meets an extraordinarily high standard, and which undermine[s] the prosecution’s entire case.” [State v.] Conway, 01-2808 [p.] at 1, (2001- 2808 La. 4 /12/02), 816 So.2d [290] at 291,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “C.C. testified that she did not reveal the abuse at the hands of Percle either before or during [Pierre's] trial, because she was afraid that if she did so, she would be removed from the home and deprived of her 'nanny,' as in fact happened after [she came forward]. C.C. testified that she decided to come forward when her nieces, ages three and six, began visiting the Percle home and she became afraid that what had happened to her would happen to them.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The passage of time, and not prosecutor Rhodes, thus dictated that [Pierre] cast his lot with the extraordinarily high [actual-innocence] standard as a basis for overturning his conviction and sentence in state post-conviction proceedings.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.