State v. Douglas’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. “"(1) If the defendant in a criminal action proposes to rely in any way on alibi evidence, the defendant shall, not less than five days before the trial of the cause, file and serve upon the district attorney a written notice of the purpose to offer such evidence, which notice shall state specifically the place or places where the defendant claims to have been at the time or times of the alleged offense together with the name and residence or business address of each witness upon whom the defendant intends to rely for alibi evidence. If the defendant fails to file and serve such notice, the defendant shall not be permitted to introduce alibi evidence at the trial of the cause unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. "(2) As used in this section `alibi evidence' means evidence that the defendant in a criminal action was, at the time of commission of the alleged offense, at a place other than the place where such offense was committed."”

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

2. “"The prosecution must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, including the presence of the defendant where this is necessary to establish her guilt. Thus, the prosecution must be prepared in any event to counter the defendant's denial that she was present at the scene of the crime. By contrast, a witness corroborating the defendant's alibi is not a normal subject of pretrial investigation, and the complaint of those urging notice requirements was that "`the prosecutor in such cases might easily disclose the falsity of the testimony had he the time to investigate both the reliability of the witnesses and the factual details of the evidence, but he is often denied opportunity.' "Thus, the state's interest in cases where there is a surprise claim of alibi is not so much in precluding the presentation of the alibi evidence, but in having a reasonable opportunity to investigate this testimony."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Edgmand

3. “The [Supreme] Court has .. . held that due process requires a right to testify in situations must less critical to the liberty of the defendant. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 , 93 S.Ct. 1756, 1761 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656, 664 (1973) (probation revocation); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2604 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484, 499 (1972) (parole revocation); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269 , 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1021 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 299-300 (1970) (termination of welfare benefits). It would be somewhat incongruous to rule that the constitutional principles give a person on parole or probation, one already convicted of a crime, the right to testify, and would relegate the defendant, one guaranteed a constitutional presumption of innocence, to a statutory right to testify.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 56 Md. App. 541 - Mayfield v. State