State v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defendant, in failing to provide earlier notice to the State, was clearly not seeking any tactical advantage. The trial court made no finding of willful misconduct, and the record divulges none. Defendant only sought out another expert... after the State was successful in moving to limit [the first expert’s] testimony in the middle of the trial. At that point, Defendant had no way to present vital expert testimony and comply with N.C.G.S. § 15A-905(c)(2). In light of the lack of willful misconduct on the part of Defendant, the rational reason presented for failing to inform the State before trial that Defendant would be calling [the second expert], the role of the State in having this situation arise after the trial had commenced, the fundamental nature of the rights involved, the importance to the defense of the testimony excluded, and the minimal prejudice to the State had the trial court imposed a lesser sanction - such as continuance or recess, we hold that imposing the harsh sanction of excluding [the second expert] from testifying constituted an abuse of discretion.”

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

2. “Accuracy in criminal proceedings is a particularly compelling public policy concern: The private interest in the accuracy of a criminal proceeding that places an individual's life or liberty at risk is almost uniquely compelling. Indeed, the host of safeguards fashioned by this Court over the years to diminish the risk of erroneous conviction stands as a testament to that concern. The interest of the individual in the outcome of the State's effort to overcome the presumption of innocence is obvious and weighs heavily in our analysis. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 , 78 [ 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 1093] 84 L.Ed.2d 53 , 63 (1985). The United States Supreme Court has stated that a defendant on trial has a greater interest in presenting expert testimony in his favor than the State has in preventing such testimony: The State's interest in prevailing at trial-unlike that of a private litigant-is necessarily tempered by its interest in the fair and accurate adjudication of criminal cases.... Ake, 470 U.S. at 79 [ 105 S.Ct. at 1094 ], 84 L.Ed.2d at 63 -64 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 244 N.C. App. 299 - State v. Walston

3. ““Although the Taylor Court declined to cast a mechanical standard to govern all possible cases, it established that, as a general matter, the trial judge (in deciding which sanction to impose) must weigh the defendant’s right to compulsory process against the countervailing public interests: (1) the integrity of the adversary process, (2) the interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice, and (3) the potential prejudice to the truth-determining function of the trial process. The judge should also factor into the mix the nature of the explanation given for the party’s failure seasonably to abide by the discovery request, the willfulness vel non of the violation, the relative simplicity of compliance, and whether or not some unfair tactical advantage has been sought.””

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