State v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We emphasize that this holding— that postconviction discovery motions are to be judged by a good-cause standard—does not automatically allow discovery under Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., and that it does not expand the discovery procedures within Rule 32.4. Accord [State v.] Lewis, [ 656 So.2d 1248 ,] 1250, [ (Fla.1994) ], wherein the Florida Supreme Court stated that the good-cause standard did not affect Florida’s rules relating to postconviction procedure, which are similar to ours. By adopting this standard, we are only recognizing that a trial court, upon a petitioner’s showing of good , cause, may exercise its inherent authority to order discovery in a proceeding for postconviction relief. In addition, we caution that postconviction discovery does not provide a petitioner with a right to ‘fish’ through official files and that it ‘is not a device for investigating possible claims, but a means of vindicating actual claims.’ People v. Gonzalez, 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1260 , 800 P.2d 1159, 1206 , 275 Cal.Rptr. 729, 776 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 835 , 112 S.Ct. 117 , 116 L.Ed.2d 85 (1991).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Spencer v. State

2. “[t]he circuit court may direct Martin to file a new discovery motion given that Martin has filed an amended Rule 32 petition.” 4 So.3d at 1202 . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 69 So. 3d 94 - State v. Martin