Workman v. Com.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Long · Charles Albert Massey, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia

2. “[e]vidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. However, it is not necessary to demonstrate by a preponderance that disclosure of the suppressed evidence would have resulted ultimately in the defendant’s acquittal. A conviction must be reversed if the accused shows that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Charles Albert Massey, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia · Carpitcher v. Com.

3. “Stated differently, “[t]he question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 [, 1566], 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). “[A] constitutional error occurs, and the conviction must be reversed, only if the evidence is material in the sense that its suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.” United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 678 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , [3381,] 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). In Kyles , the Supreme Court of the United States made several holdings concerning the test of materiality. First, “a showing of materiality does not require demonstration by a preponderance that disclosure of the suppressed evidence would have resulted ultimately in the defendant’s acquittal (whether based on the presence of reasonable doubt or acceptance of an explanation for the crime that does not inculpate the defendant).” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 [at 1566]. Second, materiality is not a sufficiency of the evidence test. “A defendant need not demonstrate that after discounting the inculpatory evidence in light of the undisclosed evidence, there would not have been enough left to convict.” Id. at 434-35 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 [at 1566]. Third, a harmless error analysis is unnecessary once materiality has been determined. Id. at 435 , 115 S.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 49 Va. App. 524 - Garnett v. Commonwealth · Bly v. Com.