179 W. Va. 619 - State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 187 W. Va. 136 - State v. Gill (1992), State v. Gallegos (2011)
43 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. § 371 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 963
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Blockburger v. United States · Pinkerton v. United States · Scharffe v. Perkins · Raphan v. United States
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our traditional appellate standard for determining whether the failure to comply with court ordered pretrial discovery is prejudicial is contained in Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Grimm, 165 W.Va. 547 , 270 S.E.2d 173 (1980), and is applicable to discovery under Rule 16 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. It is summarized: The nondisclosure is prejudicial where the defense is surprised on a material issue and where the failure to make the disclosure hampers the preparation and presentation of the defendant’s case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“When a trial court grants a pre-trial discovery motion requiring the prosecution to disclose evidence in its possession, non-disclosure by the prosecution is fata! to its case where such non-disclosure is prejudicial. The non-disclosure is prejudicial where the defense is surprised on a material issue and where the failure to make the disclosure hampers the preparation and presentation of the defendant’s case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The following factors are normally considered under a totality of circumstances test to determine whether one or two conspiracies are involved: (1) time; (2) persons acting as co-conspirators; (3) the statutory offenses charged in the indictments; (4) the overt acts charged by the government or any other description of the offenses charged which indicate the nature and the scope of the activity which the government sought to punish in each case; and (5) places where the events alleged as part of the conspiracy took place. These factors are guidelines only. The essence of the determination is whether there is one agreement to commit two crimes, or more than one agreement, each with a separate object.””
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.