Wilson v. State’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 accused does not have an unfettered right to offer testimony that is incompetent, privileged, or otherwise inadmissible under standard rules of evidence. The Compulsory Process Clause provides him with an effective weapon, but it is a weapon that cannot be used irresponsibly.’ In Valenzuela-Bemal, the Court confirmed the additional element of materiality to the defense, pointing out that, to establish a violation of the compulsory process clause, the defendant ‘must at least make some plausible showing of how [the] testimony would have been both material and favorable to his defense.’ 458 U.S. at 867 , 102 S.Ct. at 3446 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 1202 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kelly v. State · 177 Md. App. 188 - Muhammad v. State

2. ““ ‘The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses lor the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense. The right is a fundamental element of due process of law.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Diggs v. State · Kelly v. State

3. ““the right to compulsory process embodies more than just the right to have a subpoena issued, even if it does not constitute an actual guarantee of attendance. We must keep in mind that the raison d’etre of the right of compulsory process is the right of the defendant to present a defense, and that right woo'd hardly be served if the subsidiary right were limited to the issuance of a subpoena. A defendant needs his or her witnesses in court, not simply subject to later punishment for failure to obey a subpoena.””

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