State v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The presence of the informer at the scene of the alleged crime, or his involvement in the criminal activity for which the defendant is charged, has been viewed as a significant factor in the decision to require disclosure. See, e. g., Portomene v. United States, 221 F.2d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 1955); People v. McShann, 50 Cal.2d 802 , 330 P.2d 33, 35 (1958). Where, however, there is no showing that the informer was connected with the defendant’s criminal conduct, but was merely conveying information to law enforcement officials, nondisclosure of his identity is justified. See, e. g., Cook v. United States, 354 F.2d 529, 531 (9th Cir. 1965); Miller v. United States, 273 F.2d 279, 281 (5th Cir. 1959); Pegram v. United States, 267 F.2d 781, 782-83 (6th Cir. 1959); People v. White, 16 N.Y.2d 270 , 266 N.Y.S.2d 100 , 213 N.E.2d 438, 440 (1965); Lee v. State, 235 Md. 301 , 201 A.2d 502, 504 (1964); People v. Beattie, 31 Ill.2d 257 , 201 N.E.2d 396, 398 (1964).” Id. at 181.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Souza

2. “We believe that no fixed rule with respect to disclosure is justifiable. The problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s right to prepare his defense. Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony, and other relevant factors.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Chase

3. “No person is incompetent to testify in any court or legal proceeding in consequence of having been convicted of an offense, but conviction of a felony, any larceny or any other crime involving moral turpitude may be shown to affect his credibility, provided that less than 15 years have .transpired since said conviction and less than 10 years have transpired since termination of any incarceration period therefor.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Strollo