Dodd v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2020
16 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
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Jackson v. Denno · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Arizona v. Fulminante
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At least ten days before trial, the state is required to disclose in discovery: (1) the complete criminal history of the informant; (2) any deal, promise, inducement, or benefit that the offering party has made or may make in the future to the informant (emphasis added); (3) the specific statements made by the defendant and the time, place, and manner of their disclosure; (4) all other cases in which the informant testified or offered statements against an individual but was not called, whether the statements were admitted in the case, and whether the informant received any deal, promise, inducement, or benefit in exchange for or subsequent to that testimony or statement; (5) whether at any time the informant recanted that testimony or statement, and if so, a transcript or copy of such recantation; and (6) any other information relevant to the informant's credibility.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“relay incriminating statements to the state in expectation of benefit in exchange.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dean“so that counsel will be prepared to cross-examine an informant-witness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ellis v. State
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.