Silva v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]mpeachment evidence is especially likely to be material when it impugns the testimony of a witness who is critical to the prosecution's case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mellen v. Winn · Reynoso v. Giurbino

2. “Had the prosecution’s deal foreclosing a psychiatric examination of Thomas been revealed, it could have had a profound effect on the jury’s assessment of Thomas’s testimony.... The fact of the undisclosed deal bears critically and directly- on Thomas’s competence and credibility as a witness. Had the defense known that the prosecution had required, as a condition of Thomas’s plea bargain, that he agree not to be psychi-atrically evaluated before testifying, competent defense counsel would have ensured that the jury was made aware of the potentially devastating fact that the state itself doubted Thomas’s mental competency.... [T]he very fact that the prosecution had sought to keep evidence of Thomas’s mental capacity away from the jury might have diminished the State’s own credibility as a presenter of evidence. In sum, the fact of the prosecution’s undisclosed deal with Thomas, had it been presented to the jury, would have put the testimony of this critical witness in a substantially different light, both directly, by casting doubt on the accuracy of Thomas’s testimony, and indirectly, by inducing the defense to focus the jury’s attention on Thomas’s lapses and inconsistencies and by calling into question the prosecutor’s faith in the competence of his own witness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shelton v. Marshall

3. “[A] defendant's conviction in spite of his attempt at impeaching a key government witness demonstrates only the inadequacy of the impeachment material actually presented , not that of the suppressed impeachment material; in light of the failure of the impeachment attempt at trial, the suppressed impeachment material may 'take[ ] on an even greater importance.' " Silva , 416 F.3d at 989 (quoting Benn v. Lambert , 283 F.3d 1040 , 1055 (9th Cir. 2002) ) (alteration in Silva ). The undisclosed statements were not cumulative of the other impeachment evidence presented at trial; they were of a different kind. See United States v. Collicott , 92 F.3d 973 , 980 n.5 (9th Cir. 1996) (listing five types of impeachment evidence); see also Gonzalez v. Wong , 667 F.3d 965 , 984 (9th Cir. 2011) ("Where the withheld evidence opens up new avenues for impeachment, it can be argued that it is still material.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mellen v. Winn