Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 402 S.E.2d 692 - White v. Com.

White v. Com.’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
September 2003
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · Weatherford v. Bursey · Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw

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

  1. “The present case ... does not involve any direct restriction on the scope of cross-examination. The defense was free to cross-examine the witnesses on any relevant subject, including possible bias or interest.... The constitutional error, if any, in this case was the Government’s failure to assist the defense by disclosing information that might have been helpful in conducting the cross-examination.... [S]ueh suppression of evidence amounts to a constitutional violation ... if it deprives the defendant of a fair trial. Consistent with “our overriding concern with the justice of the finding of guilt” a constitutional error occurs, and the conviction must be reversed, ... if the evidence is material in the sense that its suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “Even if the [evidence] was inadmissible, it may have affected the defendant’s trial preparation. A factor in determining the materiality of undisclosed information is “[a]ny adverse effect that the prosecutor’s failure to respond might have had on the preparation and presentation of the defendant’s case.” An extrajudicial statement may be vitally important in the preparation and conduct of a criminal trial. It may identify witnesses and other resources for further investigation. It may be used to refresh a witness’ recollection. It may be used under certain circumstances as evidence of a past recollection recorded. Such a statement may also be used as a basis for cross-examining witnesses.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.