Davis v. Winkler’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
9 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984)
Relies on United States v. Georgia-Pacific Co. · Pool v. Superior Court · University of Arizona Health Sciences Center v. Superior Court · State v. Mauro · United States v. Payden
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All persons charged with crime shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for: 1. Capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great. 2. Felony offenses, committed when the person charged is already admitted to bail on a separate felony charge and where the proof is evident or the presumption great as to the present charge. 3. Felony offenses if the person charged poses a substantial danger to any other person or the community, if no conditions of release which may be imposed will reasonably assure the safety of the other person or the community and if the proof is evident or the presumption great as to the present charge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he court may review and amend release conditions at any time, and the subsequent discovery of additional information indicating that the accused is not bailable is a sufficient reason to do so.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In this case, the Defendant was held non-bondable at his initial appearance after the Court found that he committed this offense while released on a prior felony and that the proof was evident and the presumption great that he committed another felony while released. On the date set for his preliminary hearing the Defendant was released on his own recognizance when the State was unable to proceed with the preliminary hearing within 10 days after initial appearance as required by Rule 5.1(c) [sic] of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 5.1(c) provides for a procedure to hold a defendant charged with a non-bond-able offense for more than 10 days but that procedure was not followed in this case. The Defendant remained released on his own recognizance until his preliminary hearing held on October 31, 1995. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing the Defendant was bound over for trial to the Superior Court. At that point in time the State could have requested that the Defendant be held non-bondable because they had proven the elements of the applicable statute AR.S. § 13-3961(B) [sic] and the Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Sec 22(3) [sic]. The record, however, reflects that no such request was made by the State and the Magistrate again released the Defendant on his own recognizance. The State now flies its Motion to Hold Non-Bondable without alleging any new, different or additional circumstances and, on the basis of the transcript of proceedings held in Justice Court at ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.