White v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 10 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'"[Blefore a defendant is entitled to an instruction on the defense ..., he must establish a prima facie case of the ... elements of that defense." Michigan v. Lemons, 454 Mich. 234 , 562 N.W.2d 447, 454 (1997). Prima facie evidence is defined as: Evidence good and sufficient on its face. Such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense, and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient ... to sustain a judgment in favor of the issue which it supports.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Bland v. State · Roberts v. State

2. “The right of the accused to confront the prosecution’s witnesses and to present his own witnesses to establish a defense is a fundamental element of due process of law. Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). Although the criminal discovery code provides for exclusion of evidence as a sanction for non-compliance, this Court has found in several capital cases that the exclusion of a defense witness was “too severe a sanction.” See Allen v. State, 1997 OK CR 44, ¶ 11 , 944 P.2d 934, 937 . See also Wisdom v. State, 1996 OK CR 22, ¶ 44 , 918 P.2d 384, 396 ; Morgan v. District Court of Woodward County, 1992 OK CR 29, ¶ 8 , 831 P.2d 1001, 1005 . In so finding the Allen court noted the Sixth Amendment Compulsory Process Clause could be violated by excluding a material defense witness as a sanction for a discovery violation. Allen, 1997 OK CR 44, ¶ 11 , 944 P.2d at 937 . “Excluding a material defense witness is appropriate only where the discovery violation is ‘willful and motivated by a desire to obtain' a tactical advantage that would minimize the effectiveness of cross-examination and the ability to adduce rebuttal evidence.’ ” Id. (quoting Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 415 , 108 S.Ct. 646, 656 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988)). Where the discovery violation is not willful, blatant or calculated gamesmanship, alternative sanctions are adequate and appropriate. See Allen, 1997 OK CR 44, ¶ 11 , 944 P.2d at 937 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2006 OK CR 7 - Rojem v. State

3. “Appellant established, if beheved that he was intoxicated after he ingested six vali-um tablets and drank vodka the afternoon preceding the homicide. He further testified that he never intended to kill Twanski and that he could not remember significant portions of the evening of the homicide. Dr. Murphy would have explained the second component of the voluntary intoxication defense, ie. how Appellant's intoxication affected his mental state and prevented him from forming malice aforethought. Such evidence is critical to establish the defense of voluntary intoxication.”

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