149 Misc. 2d 844 - Dabbs v. Vergari’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 18 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[A] defendant has a constitutional right to be informed of exculpatory information known to the State (see generally, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 ; [other citations omitted]). . . . “A corollary to the duty of disclosure is the duty to preserve exculpatory material [citations omitted] .... “[C]ourts have dismissed indictments after convictions because of destruction or loss of evidence by the police when that police conduct has deprived a defendant of material of high exculpatory potential. [Citations omitted.] “By a parity of reasoning, where evidence has been preserved which has high exculpatory potential, thatevidence should be discoverable after conviction . . . . “[W]hile it is unclear what such testing will ultimately reveal, [defendant] has demonstrated an adequate foundation for the testing by showing that the victim’s panties, a gauze pad and rape test slides have high exculpatory potential. . . . Assuming the sexual history as described [by the victim] to be true, any semen taken from the victim could only belong to her attacker. If DNA testing could exclude that semen as belonging to [defendant], it would strongly impeach the credibility of the victim’s identification of [defendant].” 149 Misc. 2d at 847-49 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 21 Kan. App. 2d 533 - Mebane v. State