State v. Lackey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(1) notify the prosecuting attorney that a petition has been made under K.S.A. 21-2512(a); (2) determine whether the biological material sought to be tested qualifies for testing under K.S.A. 21-2512(a)(l)-(3); and (3) determine whether testing may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence relevant to the petitioner’s claim of wrongful conviction or sentencing. In performing the second and third steps, the district court must assess whether to appoint counsel for an indigent applicant, as provided by K.S.A. 21-2512(e), and whether an evidentiary hearing is required.” State v. Lackey, 295 Kan. 816, 820-21 , 286 P.3d 859 (2012).”

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

2. “(b)(1) The court shall notify the prosecuting attorney of a petition made under subsection (a) and shall afford the prosecuting attorney an opportunity to respond. (2) Upon receiving notice of a petition made under subsection (a), the prosecuting attorney shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that any remaining biological material that was secured in connection with the case is preserved pending the completion of proceedings under this section.”

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

3. “[T]he statute does not require the prisoner to make specific allegations regarding how the requested testing would produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence. 277 Kan. at 606. Instead, . . . it was the legislature, through the language employed in K.S.A. 21- 2512, that had concluded a 'fishing expedition' for DNA evidence is worth conducting in these cases. 277 Kan. at 606.”

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