State v. Riofta’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
22 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3600 (Innocence Protection Act of 2004)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc · Schlup v. Delo
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he statute requires a trial court to grant a motion for postconviction testing when exculpatory results would, in combination with the other evidence, raise a reasonable probability the petitioner was not the perpetrator.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Crumpton · State v. George“(2) The motion shall: (a) State that: (i) The court ruled that DNA testing did not meet acceptable scientific standards; or (ii) DNA testing technology was not sufficiently developed to test the DNA evidence in the case; or (iii) The DNA testing now requested would be significantly more accurate than prior DNA testing or would provide significant new information; (b) Explain why DNA evidence is material to the identity of the perpetrator of. . . the crime . . . ; and (3) The court shall grant a motion requesting DNA testing under this section if such motion is in the form required by subsection (2) of this section, and the convicted person has shown the likelihood that the DNA evidence would demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not basis.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Crumpton · State v. Gray“(1) A person convicted of a felony in a Washington state court who currently is serving a term of imprisonment may submit to the court that entered the judgment of conviction a verified written motion requesting DNA testing, with a copy of the motion provided to the state office of public defense. (2) The motion shall: (a) State that: (i) The court ruled that DNA testing did not meet acceptable scientific standards; or (ii) DNA testing technology was not sufficiently developed to test the DNA evidence in the case; or (iii) The DNA testing now requested would be significantly more accurate than prior DNA testing or would provide significant new information; (b) Explain why DNA evidence is material to the identity of the perpetrator of, or accomplice to, the crime, or to sentence enhancement; and (c) Comply with all other procedural requirements established by court rule.”
2 later decisions 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.