Cloird v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

56 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Stickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 (1999), the Court revisited Brady and explained its implications. It noted that since the decision in Brady, the court had held that the duty to disclose such evidence is applicable even though there has been no request by the accused, and that the duty encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence. Such evidence is material “if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Moreover, the rule encompasses evidence “known only to police investigators and not the prosecutor.” Therefore, to comply with Brady, “the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf. . . .” Stickler, supra; Larimore [v. State, 341 Ark. 397 , 17 S.W.3d 87 (2000).] In Stickler, the court set out the three elements of a true Brady violation: (1) the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; (2) that the evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice must have ensued.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 83 Ark. App. 377 - Jimenez v. State

2. “(1) Whether the DNA test results or laboratory report were available to the State before trial; (2) Whether either the DNA evidence or laboratory report, if available to the State before trial, was indeed favorable to the defense; (3) Whether prejudice ensued to the defense as a result of the State’s failure to disclose the DNA test results or laboratory report; (4) Whether there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different; and (5) Whether petitioner raised the possible Brady violations in a timely manner.”

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