State v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The critical issue is not whether the witness will feel an obligation to testify to the same facts earlier told the prosecutors or police, but rather whether the prosecution has conditioned the plea agreement upon such testimony, regardless of the truth of the earlier statement. [Citation.] All accomplice plea agreements put some pressure on a cooperating witness. [Citation.] But a consistency agreement has the strong potential to procure untruthful testimony if the agreement is not also conditioned upon the requirement of truthful testimony. [Citation.] It is this tainting of the `truth-seeking function of the courts' that makes consistency provisions invalid. [Citation.]" State v. Rivera, 210 Ariz. 188, 191 , 109 P.3d 83, 86 (2005).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 236 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Bannister

2. “a basic principle of law that '[p]rosecutors have a duty to the court not to knowingly encourage or present false testimony.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 242 W. Va. 64 - Christopher J. v. Donnie Ames, Superintendent

3. “Cross-examination, not exclusion is the proper tool for challenging the weight and credibility of accomplice testimony”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 236 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Bannister