Hudson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Pataki v. Grumet · Kansas v. Nebraska · State v. Ervin · Wilkerson v. Prelutsky · Pellitteri v. Barry-Wehmiller Co.
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) There is evidence upon which DNA testing can be conducted; and (2) The evidence was secured in relation to the crime; and (3) The evidence was not previously tested by the movant because: (a) The technology for the testing was not reasonably available to the movant at the time of the trial; (b) Neither the movant nor his or her trial counsel was aware of the existence of the evidence at the time of trial; or (c) The evidence was otherwise unavailable to both the movant and movant's trial counsel at the time of trial; and (4) Identity was an issue in the trial; and (5) A reasonable probability exists that the movant would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through the requested DNA testing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mercer v. State“In order for a person in custody of the department of corrections to receive DNA testing, he or she must file a motion alleging circumstances that, if substantiated, would demonstrate the person's innocence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mercer v. State
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.