Patrick v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably Armstead v. State (1996), Williams v. State (2001)
25 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Rosenberg v. Comerica Bank · Austin Products Co. v. Workers' Compensation Insurers Rating Association of Minnesota · 64 Cal. 2d 159 - Ballard v. Superior Court of San Diego County · Johnson v. State
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Witnesses. Disclose to the defendant the name and address of each person then known whom the State intends to call as a witness at the hearing or trial to prove its case in chief or to rebut alibi testimony; (2) Statements of the Defendant. As to all statements made by the defendant to a State agent that the State intends to use at a hearing or trial, furnish to the defendant, but not file unless the court so orders: (A) a copy of each written or recorded statement, and (B) the substance of each oral statement and a copy of all reports of each oral statement; (3) Statements of Codefendants. As to all statements made by a codefendant to a State agent which the State intends to use at a joint hearing or trial, furnish to the.defendant, but not file unless the court so orders: (A) a copy of each written or recorded statement, and (B) the substance of each oral statement and a copy of all reports of each oral statement; (4) Reports or Statements of Experts. Produce and permit the defendant to inspect and copy all written reports or statements made in connection with the action by each expert consulted by the State, including the results of any physical or mental examination, scientific test, experiment, or comparison, and furnish the defendant with the substance of any such oral report and conclusion; (5) Evidence for Use at Trial. Produce and permit the defendant to inspect, copy, and photograph any documents, computer-generated evidence as defined in Rule 2-504.3(a), record”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. State“The polygraph, colloquially known as the "lie detector” test, is a device which purports to gauge a subject’s truthfulness. A polygraph machine measures changes in an examinee’s blood pressure, pulse, respiration, galvanic skin resistance, and/or muscular ■ activity in response to an examiner’s questions. Because its reliability has not been sufficiently established, courts have nearly universally held polygraph evidence to be generally inadmissible at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.