State v. Love’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The question of suppression of allegedly exculpatory evidence is governed by United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2892 , 49 L.Ed2d 342 (1976); Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786 , 92 S.Ct. 2562 , 33 L.Ed2d 706 (1972); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); State v. Peterson, 219 N.W.2d 665 (Iowa 1974). Under these authorities the due process question turns on two factors: the nature of defendant’s request and the materiality of the evidence. Three situations have been analyzed. In the first situation the prosecution uses perjured testimony at trial. Here it is not required for the defense to make any request for exculpatory evidence. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 , 55 S.Ct. 340 , 79 L.Ed. 791 (1934). The use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair so, even in the absence of any request, any conviction must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood the perjured testimony affected the result. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 103 , 96 S.Ct. at 2397 , 49 L.Ed.2d at 350 . In the second situation the defense makes a pretrial request for specific evidence which is not disclosed. See Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1196 , 10 L.Ed.2d at 218 . A conviction obtained under these circumstances will be set aside if the defense can show the suppressed evidence is material. In order for materiality to exist it must appear that the suppressed evidence affected the outcome of the trial. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 104 , 96 S.Ct. at 2397 , 49 L.Ed.2d at 350”

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

2. “if the omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist, constitutional error has been committed. This means that the omission must be evaluated in the context of the entire record. If there is no reasonable doubt about guilt whether or not the additional evidence is considered, there is no justification for a new trial. On the other hand, if the verdict is already of questionable validity, additional evidence of relatively minor importance might be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt.”

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

3. “Our scope of review on the question is unique. We look to the record de novo and, on that basis, determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. Under Iowa R.Crim.P. 10(9)(b) a change of venue must be granted when the court is satisfied such prejudice exists in the county of a scheduled trial that there is a “substantial likelihood a fair and impartial trial cannot be had there.””

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