173 W. Va. 553 - State v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably 45 Cal. 3d 1126 - People v. Wright (1988), 203 W. Va. 561 - State v. Salmons (1998)
55 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3500
Relies on Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · United States v. Nobles · Bates v. State Bar · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp.
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Motion for Production — After a witness other than the defendant has testified on direct examination, the court, on motion of a party who did not call the witness, shall order the attorney for the State or the defendant and his attorney, as the case may be, to produce for the examination and use of the moving party any statement of the witness that is in their possession that relates to the subject matter concerning which the witness has testified.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a)Motion for Production. After a witness other than the defendant has testified on direct examination, the court, on motion of a pariy who did not call the witness, shall order the attorney for the State or the defendant and the defendant’s attorney, as the case may be, to produce for the examination and use of the moving party any statement of the witness that is in their possession and that relates to the subject matter concerning which the witness has testified. (b) Production of Entire Statement. If the entire contents of the statement relate to the subject matter concerning which the witness has testified, the court shall order that the statement be delivered to the moving party. (c) Production of Excised Statement. If the other party claims that the statement contains privileged information or matter that does not relate to the subject matter concerning which the witness has testified, the court shall order that it be delivered to the court in camera. Upon inspection, the court shall excise the portions of the statement that are privileged or that do not relate to the subject matter concerning which the witness has testified, and shall order that the statement, with such material excised, be delivered to the moving party. Any portion of the statement that is withheld from the defendant over his or her objection shall be preserved by the attorney for the state, and, if the defendant appeals a conviction, must be made available to the appellate court for the purpose of d”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The advisory committee’s note to Federal Rule 26.2 reflects that the rule developed from two sources.... The first was the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 , which provided a rather detailed procedure requiring the government to produce written statements of witnesses who testified at trial. The defendant had to request production of the written statement once the witness completed his direct examination. The second source was the case of United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), where the United States Supreme Court recognized under certain circumstances that the prosecutor could compel the production of written statements of defense witnesses. Thus, as the commentators recognized, Nobles provided the reciprocity that the Jencks Act lacked and gave the impetus for the adoption of Rule 26.2.”
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.