Evans v. Janing’s Empirical Analysis
489 F.2d 470 · 1973
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably State v. Waddy (1992), Calley v. Callaway (1975)
49 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Simmons v. United States · Stovall v. Denno · Giglio v. United States · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The standard of materiality has varied greatly. Where the nondisclosed evidence is patently immaterial, it has been held outside the reach of Brady as in Peterson v. United States, 411 F. 2d 1074 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U. S. 920 , 90 S.Ct. 247 , 24 L.Ed.2d 199 (1969), or else the harmless error standard has been applied. United States v. Davila-Nater, 474 F.2d 270 (5th Cir. 1973). Levin v. Clark, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 6 , 408 F.2d 1209 , 1212 (1967) stated the test in terms of ‘whether the evidence might have led the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt’ about defendant’s guilt. Perhaps the most realistic standard is simply whether the nondisclosure prejudiced the defense. Simos v. Gray, 356 F.Supp. 265 (E.D.Wis.1973); cf. United States v. Brumley, 466 F.2d 911 (10th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 929 , 93 S.Ct. 2755 , 37 L.Ed.2d 156 (1973); Kyle v. United States, 297 F.2d 507 , (2d Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 909 , 84 S.Ct. 1170 , 12 L.Ed.2d 179 (1964). See Comment, 40 U.Chi.L.Rev. 112 (1972).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““This duty of candor, while substantial, is not all encompassing. It neither requires full disclosure as in civil eases nor permits a ‘combing of the prosecutors’ files’ in search of evidence possibly useful to the accused. It has been limited to evidence favorable to the accused, material to his guilt or punishment, and evidence affecting the credibility of a key witness when his reliability may be determinative of guilt or innocence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Devose v. Norris““Evidence material to guilt is, we think, evidence which is of probative character on that question. As to evidence not of that character and having admissibility only for the purpose of impeachment or credibility attack, nondisclosure or suppression, to be violative of due process, would in our opinion, unless the situation is otherwise tainted, have to be of such inherent significance as to represent fundamental unfairness.””
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.