State v. Curtis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right [to compulsory process] is not absolute, and does not guarantee the right to secure the attendance and testimony of any and all witnesses. United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867 , 102 S.Ct. 3440 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982); State v. Hilgers, 2004 ND 160, ¶ 25 , 685 N.W.2d 109 ; State v. Stockert, 2004 ND 146, ¶ 12 , 684 N.W.2d 605 ; State v. Treis, 1999 ND 136, ¶ 11 , 597 N.W.2d 664 . The trial court ‘is not obligated to issue every subpoena requested by a defendant.’ Hilgers , at ¶ 32. The defendant has the burden of showing that the testimony would have been both favorable and material to his defense. Valenzuela-Bernal, at 867, 102 S.Ct. 3440; Hilgers , at ¶ 25; Stockert , at ¶ 12; Treis , at ¶ 11. ‘Whether the district court’s refusal to issue a subpoena violates the Sixth Amendment is a question of law, and our standard of review for a claimed violation of a constitutional right is de novo.’ Hilgers , at ¶25 (quoting Treis , at ¶ 11); see also Stockert, at ¶ 12.””

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