Murphy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Lagenour v. State (1978), Commonwealth v. St. Pierre (1979)
76 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Furman v. Georgia · Moore v. Illinois · Hill v. State · Hester v. State · ANTROBUS v. State
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The weight to be accorded expert testimony as well as lay testimony, is the exclusive province of the trier of fact which is at liberty to discount it or to reject it in the face of lay testimony, which it finds more persuasive.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is of no significance that there was eyewitness testimony. Nor does it matter that the defendant’s task of rebutting the State’s evidence seems insurmountable". We simply cannot say that the inability to depose the seven witnesses was harmless. The fact that there may have been other evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction in no way meets this problem. We cannot presume, as a matter of law, that no exculpatory or mitigating evidence would have surfaced from the depositions sought. Even if it were determined retrospectively that nothing in aid of his ’, defense was discoverable, we could not discount the effect of a denial. Effective counseling is dependent upon knowledge of the facts, and it is essential that weaknesses as-well as strengths be discovered and intelligently addressed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Absent a showing that the defendant had no legitimate defense interest in support of his petition or that the State had a paramount interest to protect, criminal defendants have a right under our statute and rules of procedure to discovery, including the taking of depositions from those persons listed as state witnesses.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mason v. Indiana
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.