Levin v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
408 F.2d 1209 · 1967
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently August 1984 · most notably United States v. Carlton E. Bryant, United States of America v. William E. Turner (1971), United States v. Lemonakis (1973)
57 federal appellate · 12 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Mooney v. Holohan · Giles v. State of Maryland · Pyle v. State of Kansas
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This standard requires speculation because there is no sure way to know how the jury would have viewed any particular piece of evidence. Nor is it possible to know whether revelation of the evidence would have changed the configuration of the trial — whether defense counsel's preparation would have been different had he known about the evidence, whether new defenses would have been added, whether the emphasis of the old defenses would have shifted. Because the standard requires this kind of speculation we cannot apply it harshly or dogmatically.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . information merely repetitious, cumulative, or embellishing of facts otherwise known to the defense or presented to the court, or without importance to the defense for purposes of the preparation of the case or for trial . . . [nor] preliminary, challenged, or speculative information.” Giles v. Maryland, supra, 386 U.S. at 98 , 87 S.Ct. at 809 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.