482 F. Supp. 2d 764 - Tassin v. Cain’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “The Supreme Court has interpreted Fourteenth Amendment due process protections to require a new trial when convictions are obtained through material evidence known to be false by representatives of the State. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-54 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). This is true regardless of whether the State solicits false testimony or merely allows testimony which it knows to be false to go uncorrected. Giglio, 405 U.S. at 153 , 92 S.Ct. 763 ; Napue, 360 U.S. at 269 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 . The rule extends to evidence going to the credibility of a witness when that witnesses’s (sic) testimony is material to the case. Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154 , 92 S.Ct. 763 . ‘Any understanding or agreement as to a future | goprosecution would be relevant to [the witness’s] credibility and the jury [is] entitled to know of it.’ Id. at 155 , 92 S.Ct. 763 . In addition, when the prosecution has evidence favorable to a defendant in its possession it must produce that evidence. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The evidence need not be exculpatory; a constitutional violation also occurs when material impeachment evidence is withheld. U.S. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676-83 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 129 So. 3d 1235 - State v. Tassin

2. “While Judge Karno may not have promised to sentence Georgina Tassin to 10 years, he made representations to Georgina’s counsel and the prosecutor that were firm enough for her to treat those representations as reliable. Judge Karno conditioned his agreement to consider a 10-year sentence on the consistency of Georgina Tassin’s testimony, encouraging her understanding that she was being asked to perform certain conduct in return for certain consideration. The likelihood of a 10-year sentence was sufficient to lay to rest the concerns of her attorney and herself that she could face 99 years despite her willingness to testify favorably for the State.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 129 So. 3d 1235 - State v. Tassin

3. “[t]he existence and substance, and the manner of execution of fulfillment, o[f¡ any promises, agreements, understandings, or arrangements, either oral or written, between the Government and any prosecution witness or informant or cooperating defendant or his or her attorneys or to their representatives, wherein the government has agreed: ... c. To recommend leniency in sentencing for any crime or crimes for which he or she is convicted; d. To recommend a particular sentence .... To make any other recommendations or benefit or to give any other consideration to him or her.” 3 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tassin v. Cain