State v. Sheffey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Therefore, any determination as to whether an informer’s identity is to be revealed requires a balancing of the aforesaid countering interests in light of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. Among facts to be considered in this weighing process are (1) nature of the offense charged; (2) defenses raised; and (3) potential significance of an informer’s testimony. “The burden in inceptionally upon defendant to show cause for such disclosure. And in this regard the mere assertion of entrapment as a defense to a criminal charge will not suffice. “But when showing is made by an accused that an informer’s identity is material to his defense or essential to a fair trial the informer privilege disappears. (Authorities).”

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

2. “Although the informant’s physical presence at the scene of the alleged crime is of significance, it is not sufficient, standing alone, to hold him a participant and thus affect the nondisclosure privilege. [Case cited.] In short, defendant would have this court adopt a per se rule. In this jurisdiction, . . . the burden of showing need is upon defendant. Mere speculation an informer may be helpful is not enough to carry the burden and overcome the public interest in the protection of the informer.”

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