Riofta v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 9 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]here is nothing "new" about the [physical evidence] or any information that [DNA testing] may [yield]. DNA testing of comparable accuracy was available at trial. Because [the defendant] chose not to test the [physical evidence] at trial does not mean that any information discoverable through post-conviction testing is now "new." . . . [A] strained consequence results if we were to [adopt] the hyper-literal interpretation [of "new evidence" that the defendant] urges[.] [This interpretation would] allow[] a defendant to take a "wait and see" position on DNA testing by trying to gain [an] acquittal without the DNA information but, following conviction, moving to test the DNA. . . . Accordingly, we hold that . . . [i]f a person requests [post-trial] DNA testing of evidence [and] the same or comparable testing [was available at trial, any] information that the [post-trial] testing might reveal . . . is not "new". . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Osborne v. State

2. “The absence of Riofta's DNA on the white hat [would] not necessarily indicate that Riofta was not the shooter[,] because Riofta may not have transferred his DNA to the hat. For example, evidence indicates that the shooter could have worn the hat for only a relatively short period of time because the car in which the hat was located was stolen within twelve hours of the shooting. Moreover, the presence of someone else's DNA (other than the hat's owner . . .) [would] not exonerate Riofta[,] because Riofta and other persons could have worn the hat without all of them transferring DNA [to the hat.] . . . [E]ven if DNA on the white hat matched [someone else], it [would] not conclusively establish Riofta's innocence[,] given the number of persons [the victim] saw in the car who may have worn the hat.[ [22] ]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Osborne v. State

3. “position on DNA testing by trying to gain [an] acquittal without the DNA information but, following conviction, moving to test the DNA. . . . Accordingly, we hold that . . . [i]f a person requests [post-trial] DNA testing of evidence [and] the same or comparable testing [was available at trial, any] information that the [post-trial] testing might reveal . . . is not”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Osborne v. State