Harris v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 2021
12 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 Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As we pointed out in Grandison v. State, 390 Md. 412, 431 , 889 A.2d 366 , (2006 [2005]), citing Conyers v. State, 367 Md. 571, 597-98 , 790 A.2d 15, 30-31 (2002), in order to establish a Brady violation, the petitioner must show that (1) the prosecutor suppressed or withheld evidence that would have been favorable to the defense because it (i) was exculpatory, (ii) provided a basis for mitigation of sentence, or (iii) provided a basis for impeaching a State witness, and (2) the suppressed evidence was material.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[ejvidence that the State has entered into an agreement with a witness, whether formally or informally, is often powerful impeachment evidence and the existence of such a 'deal' must be disclosed to the accused.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Calloway 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.