Garnett v. Com.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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. “rule prohibiting the use of summaries, such summaries of exculpatory evidence must be complete and accurate.... An incomplete or inaccurate summary could be constitutionally insufficient under Brady when the omissions or inaccuracies resulted in the prejudicial suppression of material evidence favorable to the defendant. Garnett v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 397, 409 , 657 S.E.2d 100, 108 (2008). This case aptly illustrates the inherent risk, noted by our Supreme Court in Garnett , which a prosecutor takes on when only providing a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 60 Va. App. 273 - Tuma v. Commonwealth

2. “30 to 40 minute” interview prior to trial and relied upon it herself did not satisfy her responsibility under Brady . A single-page summary of such a lengthy interview, must necessarily have been incomplete and indeed, among other discrepancies with the transcript, the written summary does not include L.S.’s interview responses that nothing ever happened at Grandma’s house, that Tuma never touched her at the Green Acres trailer, and that everything happened at the white house. While Brady does not embrace a "best evidence”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 60 Va. App. 273 - Tuma v. Commonwealth

3. “bears the burden to establish that the evidence (1) appears to have been discovered subsequent to the trial; (2) could not have been secured for use at the trial in the exercise of reasonable diligence by the movant; (3) is not merely cumulative, corroborative or collateral; and (4) is material, and such as should produce opposite results on the merits at another trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Avent v. Com.