363 So. 2d 324 - State v. Sobel’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably 445 So. 2d 605 - State v. Del Gaudio (1984), 486 So. 2d 578 - Kelley v. State (1986)
50 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 · United States v. Agurs · United States v. Perry · United States v. Dolan · United States v. Carlton E. Bryant, United States of America v. William E. Turner
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish `materiality' in the constitutional sense. ..... The proper standard of materiality must reflect our overriding concern with the justice of the finding of guilt. Such a finding is permissible only if supported by evidence establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It necessarily follows that 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 ..."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. McCants v. State · State v. Snell“a defendant is not denied due process where the contents of a lost or destroyed tape recording would not have been beneficial to the accused, thus demonstrating a lack of prejudice”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. McCants v. State · Mathis v. State“In deciding whether or not the variance is fatal, we must determine whether the information is "so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense." (363 So.2d p. 328).”
2 later decisions 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.