Ex Parte Pruett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 3 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. “According to the United States Supreme Court, “There is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case.” [Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977); United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 629 , 122 S.Ct. 2450 , 153 L.Ed.2d 586 (2002).] Although the Due Process Clause confers upon defendants a right to be informed about the existence of exculpatory evidence, it does not require the prosecution to “reveal before trial the names of all witnesses who will testify unfavorably.” [Bursey, 429 U.S. at 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837 .] As for the trial court’s conclusion that the failure to reveal the inculpatory statements also violated the rules of evidence and the trial court’s discovery order, such violations, even if they occurred, would not be grounds for relief on habeas corpus. [Ex parte Pena, 71 S.W.3d 336, 336-337 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (habeas relief unavail able for a claim that does not involve a jurisdictional defect or a violation of constitutional or fundamental rights).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Robert Pruett v. Rick Thaler, Director