Miller v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Lawson v. State (2005), Lee v. State (2008)
73 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 · Apprendi v. New Jersey · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Having heard all this evidence, the trial judge found, as a fact, that, even if that one ambiguous response could be regarded as newly discovered evidence, “the Defendant has not met his burden to demonstrate that there is a substantial or significant possibility that the verdict of the jury in either the guilt/innocence or the sentencing phases of this case would have been affected.” The court obviously did not believe that, had the jury heard that one response, in context and along with all of the other evidence bearing on the question, its verdicts and sentence would have been any different.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Newly discovered evidence warrants a new trial only if it “may well have produced a different result, that is, there was a substantial or significant possibility that the verdict of the trier of fact would have been affected” and that the only issue on appeal from a ruling denying such a motion is whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that that test had not been met. There is nothing in this record to justify upsetting the trial judge’s conclusion that Miller had failed to establish that possibility.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“that all evidence seized from his person “at or about the time of the arrest” be suppressed because such evidence “was seized unlawfully, absent probable cause, and in viola tion of the United States Constitution, the Maryland Declaration of Rights and other legal rights of this Defendant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ray v. State
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.