Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Courts have split as to the necessity of ex parte hearings. Several states have statutes requiring an ex parte hearing when an indigent defendant requests appointment of an expert. See, e.g., Minn.Stat. § 611.21 (2003); S.C. Stat. § 16-3-26(c) (2003); Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-14-207(b) (2003); Nev.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 7.135 (Michie 1998); N.Y. County Law § 722 -c (Consol.1977). The courts in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington have held that an ex parte hearing is required. See Ex parte Moody, 684 So.2d 114, 120 (Ala.1996); Wall v. State, 289 Ark. 570 , 715 S.W.2d 208, 209 (1986); Brooks v. State, 259 Ga. 562 , 385 S.E.2d 81, 83-84 (1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1018 , 110 S.Ct. 1323 , 108 L.Ed.2d 498 (1990); Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383, 1385 (1979); Stanger v. State, 545 N.E.2d 1105, 1115 (Ind.App.1989); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich.App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714, 722 (1988); McGregor v. State, 733 P.2d 416, 416-17 (Okla.Crim. App.1987); Barnett, 909 S.W.2d at 428; Williams v. State, 958 S.W.2d 186, 192-94 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); State v. Newcomer, 48 WashApp. 83, 737 P.2d 1285,1291 (1987). The courts in Arizona, South Dakota, and Virginia have held that whether to hold an ex parte hearing is within the trial court’s discretion. See State v. Apelt, 176 Ariz. 349 , 861 P.2d 634, 650 (1993); State v. Floody, 481 N.W.2d 242, 254-56 (S.D.1992); Ramdass v. Commonwealth, 246 Va. 413, 437 S.E.2d 566, 571 (1993), vac”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 173 Md. App. 138 - Addison v. State

2. “We believe the better view is that an ex parte hearing, when timely requested, is required. See generally Justin B. Shane, Money Talks: An Indigent Defendant’s Right to an Ex Parte Hearing for Expert Funding, 17 Cap. Def. J. 347 (2005); Giannelli, supra, at 1403-04. Indigent defendants seeking state funded experts should not be required to disclose to the State the theory of the defense when non-indigent defendants are not required to do so. See, e.g., Barnett, 909 S.W.2d at 428 (holding that “[ijndigent defendants who must seek state-funding to hire a[n] ... expert should not be required to reveal their theory of defense when their more affluent counterparts, with funds to hire experts, are not required to reveal their theory of defense.”)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 173 Md. App. 138 - Addison v. State

3. “[i]t is the policy of the State to . . . provide for the realization of the constitutional guarantees of counsel in the representation of indigent individuals, including related necessary services and facilities , in criminal and juvenile proceedings in the State.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 93 Op. Att'y Gen. 138 - (2008)