Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2004 ME 81 - State v. Donovan

State v. Donovan’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
3
states following
January 2013
most recently cited

1 district · 3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 197 Ill. 2d 203 - People v. Savory · 316 Ill. App. 3d 752 - People v. Hockenberry · State v. Donovan · Anderson v. State · State v. Shepley

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If the results of the DNA testing under this section show that the person 5 is not the source of the evidence, the person authorized in section 2137 must show by clear and convincing evidence that: A. Only the 'perpetrator of the crime or crimes for which the person was convicted could be the source of the evidence, and that the DNA test results, when considered with all the other evidence in the case, old and new, admitted in the hearing conducted under this section on behalf of the person show that the person is actually innocent. If the court finds that the person authorized in section 2137 has met the evidentiary burden of this paragraph, the court shall grant a new trial; B. Only the perpetrator of the crime or crimes for which the person was convicted could be the source of the evidence, and that the DNA test results, when considered with all the other evidence in the case, old and new, admitted in the hearing conducted under this section on behalf of the person would make it probable that a different verdict would result upon a new trial; or C. All of the prerequisites for obtaining a new trial based on newly discovered evidence are met as follows: (1) The DNA test results, when considered with all the other evidence in the case, old and new, admitted in the hearing conducted under this section on behalf of the person would make it probable that a different verdict would result upon a new trial; (2) The preferred DNA test results have been discovered by the person sinc”
    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.