430 So. 2d 274 - State v. Zamora’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In State v. Dotson, [ 260 La. 471 ] 256 So.2d 594, 606 (La.1971) (citations omitted), the Louisiana Supreme Court said: "`The informer privilege is the privilege of withholding the identity of an informant who supplies information to law enforcement officials concerning crime. The privilege is founded upon public policy and seeks to advance the public interest in effective law enforcement. * * * "`Because of its social importance, courts zealously guard the privilege. They order disclosure of the name of a confidential informant only under exceptional circumstances for the prevention of an injustice. The burden is upon the defendant to show exceptional circumstances justifying disclosure. * * * On the question of whether the circumstances warrant disclosure, much discretion is vested in the trial court.* * *' "While evidence that the informer set up or participated in defendant's crime will justify a disclosure of his identity, merely supplying information used by the police to obtain a search warrant is not in itself an exceptional circumstance justifying disclosure. State v. McDonald, 390 So.2d 1276 (La.1980). "It is only when the informer is the sole witness to the crime with which the accused is charged that his identity must be revealed. When the informer is nothing more than an informer and does not participate in the criminal transaction which forms the basis of the prosecution, no disclosure of his identity is required. See United States v. Clark, 482 F.2d 103 (5th C”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bailey