State v. Trahan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 30 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In State v. Bosworth, 360 So.2d 173, 175 (La.1978), we reiterated: `Where, in imposing a heavy sentence, the trial court relies upon pre-sentence information which is materially false or which furnishes invalid information, the defendant must be given an opportunity to deny or explain such substantially significant misinformation. State v. Segers, 357 So.2d 1 (La.1978); State v. Underwood, 353 So.2d 1013 (La.1977).' We there explained that the accused has a right to access to such records, upon request and appropriate allegation (as here), in order to avoid an excessive sentence improperly resulting from materially false information, with the court (after an in camera examination) to withhold only such information which is not relevant or which is protected by confidentiality. 360 So.2d 175 . We noted also that due process and fairness values require that the defendant be afforded an opportunity to deny or to explain prejudicial information otherwise secret to the sentencing judge himself. 360 So.2d 175 . We finally noted that no full scale evidentiary trial is required at the sentencing hearing, at which the defendant is given an opportunity to deny or explain adverse information which is prejudicially false or misleading. 360 So.2d 176 -77. Under these principles, the trial court was in error in denying the defendants' motions for disclosure and for an opportunity to contradict or explain substantially prejudicial information." 367 So.2d at 754 . (Emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 377 So. 2d 1029 - State v. Richardson