Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

cited by 33 later decisions

states following

July 2011

most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably Shabazz v. State (2002), 117 Conn. App. 279 - Morant v. Commissioner of Correction (2009)

33 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 United States v. Agurs · 446 So. 2d 729 - State v. Prudholm · Larrison v. United States · Berry v. State · Summerville v. Warden, State Prison

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

“The standard that governs the granting of a petition for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is well established. The petitioner must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) the proffered evidence is newly discovered, such that it could not have been discovered earlier by the exercise of due diligence; (2) it would be material on a new trial; (3) it is not merely cumulative; and (4) it is likely to produce a different result in a new trial.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Miller v. Warden, No. Cv 92 1566 S (Mar. 27, 1996) · Dukes v. State, No. Cv95 032 41 89 S (Mar. 20, 1996)
“In analyzing the foregoing factors, trial courts are guided by the general principle that a new trial should be granted because of newly discovered evidence only if an injustice was done or it is probable that on a new trial a different result would be reached.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Dukes v. State, No. Cv95 032 41 89 S (Mar. 20, 1996) · 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4255 - Dickerson v. State, No. Cv93 030 93 31 S (May 31, 1996)
“(a) The court [must be] reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given by a material witness [at the original trial was] false. (b) That without it the jury might have reached a different conclusion. (c) That the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until after the trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4255 - Dickerson v. State, No. Cv93 030 93 31 S (May 31, 1996)

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.